NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES v.

C
PARAMESHWARA.

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI.

BY

ABHIDHA GUPTA (1868)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MR. KARAN BHARDWAJ

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATION ACT

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR

THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF B.A. LL.B.

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA, PUNJAB.

SUBMISSION YEAR: AUGUST- DECEMBER 2022.

 DECLARATION

It is certified that the project work presented in this report entitled “NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES v. C PARAMESHWARA” embodies the
results of original research work carried out by me. All the ideas and references have been duly
acknowledged.

Date of Submission: 10th November Name- Abhidha

Roll No.: 1868

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my teacher Mr. Karan Bhardwaj for giving me this opportunity of making
this project. I would also like to thank my college Army Institute of Law, Mohali for providing
me with the resources to carry out the research and make this project. I would like to extend my
grateful attitude towards my parents, friends and family for their continuous support. Last but
not the least I thank the Almighty for all his blessings.

Name: Abhidha Gupta

Roll No.: 1868

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case: National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 SC 242, (2005) 2 SCC 256.

Bench: A Pasayat, S Kapadia

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 29.6.1985, respondent herein was appointed as senior pharmacist in National Institute of

Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, appellant herein. On 21.06.1988, the disciplinary authority
of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences ordered the removal of the
Respondent from services for misappropriation of drugs to the extent of Rs. 1,79,668.46.
A detailed and elaborate enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer. On 20.2.1993, the
enquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the respondent, as a senior pharmacist,
was responsible for shortages of drugs in the year 1987 to the extent of Rs. 1,79,668.46. By
show- cause notice dated 1.3.1993, the disciplinary authority, being the Director of the
appellant- Institute, stated that he has perused the enquiry report dated 20.2.1993 and he was
satisfied with the findings given by the enquiry officer. Consequently, by the said show-cause
notice, the respondent herein was called upon to show-cause why penalty of removal from
service should not be imposed. By the said show-cause notice, the respondent herein was
asked to explain as to why the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant be not recovered from
him. The respondent herein submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. By order dated
12.4.1993, the disciplinary authority ordered removal of respondent from service and also
directed the respondent to reimburse the appellant to the extent of pecuniary loss suffered.

On failure on the part of the respondent to reimburse the loss, the appellant filed a civil
suit in a civil court of Bangalore in 1995 to which the respondent filed the written
statement. In 1997, the government of Karnataka referred the Industrial dispute raised
by the respondent to the Labour Court at Bangalore for adjudication to which it held in
favour of the respondent and set aside the order of removal. Subsequently, the appellant
filed a writ petition questioning the award of labour court. The High Court by an interim
order stayed the operation of the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour court.

In 2003, respondent filed an application under Section 10, CPC read with Section 151.
By the said application, the respondent herein sought a stay of the said suit till disposal
of the writ petition to which the City Civil Judge dismissed the application made by the
respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed Civil Revision Petition,

ISSUES RAISED

Whether application dated 20.06.2003 filed by the respondent under Section 10 read with
Section 151 CPC seeking a stay of a civil suit which the Appellants filed in the Court of
City Civil Judge, Bangalore to seek a decree for Rs. 1,79,668.46 with interest, was
maintainable.

JUDGEMENT

The whole subject-matter in both suits has to be identical. Section 10 is preferable to a suit
instituted in civil court. Proceedings before labour court cannot be equated with proceedings
before the civil court. The scope of the writ petition is entirely different and distinct
from a suit. High Court erred in directing trial court not to proceed with drawing up final
decree. Also, inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 cannot be exercised to nullify
provisions of Code.