Samtel Color Ltd. v. Sbi And Anr.

Alok Sharma, J.:— This matter has been marked to this Court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. At the outset, counsel for the parties were informed that I and my wife have one thousand shares of SBI which is a respondent No. 1 in this petition. Counsel for the parties have submitted that in view of the minuscule number of shares in issue and that too in a wholly Union of India owned public sector undertaking, they have no objection if the matter is heard by this Court.

2. The matter comes up on application no. 41445/2016 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for striking out a portion of Para 5 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that “a copy of the sub-lease deed which was duly registered with the sub-registrar is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4”. It has been submitted that the words “which was duly registered with Sub-Registrar” be allowed to be deleted as they have been erroneously set out in the aforesaid sentence of Para 5 for the reason that the sub-lease was indeed sought to be registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kota yet owing to dispute with regard to the stamp duty, leviable the sub-lease could not be registered.

3. Mr. Gopal Garg, Senior Counsel with Mr. V.S Yadav has submitted that he has no objection if the words “which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar” mentioned the application under consideration are deleted.

4. In view of the submissions made, the application is allowed. The words “which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar” in Para 5 of the writ petition are deleted.

5. The matter also comes up on an application no. 42605/2016 for impleadment at the instance of the Samtel Color Workers Samiti through its Presidents Dinesh Kumar Sen and Samtel Glass Workers Samiti through Milan Sharma.

6. Counsel for the applicant Mr. Lokesh Sharma has submitted that the two Samitis represent 1800 workers of the petitioner company whose wages have not been paid since November, 2012, despite an award of the Labour Court, Kota. The Samitis therefore have an interest in the subject matter of the writ petition and therefore the application for impleadment be allowed.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Samtel Color Ltd. for impugning proceedings taken by the respondent-SBI under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. I am of the considered view that the in the context of the dispute before this Court, the two Samitis seeking impleadment for reasons recorded above have no legal right to agitate or protect in this writ petition. In fact the impleadment of the Samiti would only lead to prolixity of unrelated issues before this Court beyond the prayers in the writ petition. I therefore find no force in the application for impleadment.

9. Dismissed.

10. However the applicant will be free to intervene and assist the court on matter of relevance in the writ petition.

11. Put up tomorrow, i.e 15.09.2016, as a first case.