SRI. P. VENKATESH NAYAK vs M/S INFOSYS LIMITED

- 1 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


Reserved on: 29.09.2026
Pronounced on: 03.11.2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION NO. 22880 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. P. VENKATESH NAYAK,
S/O. SRI. P. VASUDEVA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRI. NARASIMHA KRUPA,
NO.1/1, RATNAVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED
REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU-560 100.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO.

2. MR. SALIL PAREKH
S/O. SATISH DOSABHAI PAREKH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
M/S. INFOSYS LIMITED,
ELECTRONICS CITY,
BENGALURU-560 100.

3. MS. INDERPREET SAWHNEY
D/O. MANMOHAN SINGH SAWHNEH,


Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER,
M/S. INFOSYS LIMITED,
ELECTRONICS CITY, BENGALURU-560 100.

4. MR. SANTOSH NAIR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
AVP-SENIOR PRINCIPAL HR,
M/S. INFOSYS LIMITED,
ELECTRONICS CITY, BENGALURU-560 100.

5. MR. U. B. PRAVIN RAO
S/O. U. B. PRABHAKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
FORMER COO-M/S. INFOSYS LIMITED,
(SINCE RETIRED)
RESIDING AT NO. 1701,
14TH MAIN, 30TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070.

6. MR. U. RAMADAS KAMATH
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
MAJOR BY AGE,
FORMER EVP-HEAD INFRASTRUCTURE,
M/S. INFOSYS LIMITED,
(SINCE RETIRED)
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. E-202,
ADARSH RESIDENCY,
47TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 082.

7. M/S. ERNST AND YOUNG
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6TH, 12TH,
13TH FLOOR, UB CITY,
CANBERRA BLOCK,
NO. 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITHYA VIKRAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

- 3 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DTD 2.07.2025 IN
O.S. No.6837/2022 ANNX-A PASSED BY THE VII ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE CCH-19 AT BANGALORE TO THE
EXTENT THAT IA NO.2,8,11 AND 12/2024 IS ALLOWED IN OS
NO. 6837/2022.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. ORDER

The present petition is filed impugning the order dated
02.07.2025 passed in O.S. No.6837/2022 on I.A. Nos.2, 8, 11
and 12, filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), whereby defendant Nos.2 to
5 have been deleted from the suit.

2. The petitioner instituted the suit against defendant Nos.1
to 7 seeking a declaration that the compulsory resignation of
plaintiff No.1 is bad in law, along with a consequential relief of
reinstatement and grant of all consequential benefits, as well as
damages of Rs.10,00,000/-. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed
applications under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking their
deletion from the array of parties in the suit. The trial Court, by

- 4 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


the impugned order, allowed the said applications and ordered
deletion of defendant Nos.2 to 5 from the array of parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the plaint averments specifically plead the role of defendant
Nos.2 to 5, which resulted in an investigation by defendant
No.7 into the acts of plaintiff No.1, allegedly carried out on the
instructions of defendant Nos.2 to 5, ultimately compelling the
plaintiff to submit his resignation. It is submitted that, applying
the principle of dominus litis, it is for the plaintiff to decide as
to who should be impleaded as a party to the suit. It is further
submitted that the defendants cannot seek their deletion from
the array of parties.

3.1 Learned counsel submits that defendant Nos.2 to 5, in
their respective roles entrusted to them by defendant No.1, as
pleaded in the plaint, contributed to the plaintiff being
compelled to tender his resignation. It is contended that, when
the said respondents are required to answer before the Court
with regard to the respective roles played by them, the trial
Court erred in deleting defendant Nos.2 to 5 from the array of
parties on the ground that they could instead be examined as
witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant No.1.

- 5 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


3.2 In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel
has relied upon the judgments in Jagdip Singh Chowhan v.
1
State of Punjab and Others ; Clarinda D'Souza v. McCann
2
Erickson India Limited and Others ; National Spot
3
Exchange Limited v. P.D. Agro Processors Pvt. Ltd. ; and
4
Anjum Nath v. British Airways Plc and Others .

4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 4 submits that the roles attributed to defendant Nos.2
to 5 in the plaint were performed by them in discharge of the
responsibilities entrusted to them by defendant No.1. It is
submitted that no cause of action is pleaded against defendant
Nos.2 to 5 and, in the absence of any such cause of action, the
suit cannot be maintained against defendant Nos.2 to 5.

4.1 It is further submitted that the only relief, if at all, is with
regard to payment of damages, which would arise for
consideration only upon determination of prayer No.1. If the
plaintiff succeeds in respect of prayer No.1, defendant No.1 has

1

2023 SCC OnLine P&H 3542
2
2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1110
3
2015 SCC OnLine Bom 8709
4
2005 SCC OnLine Del 1092

- 6 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


undertaken to pay the entire damages claimed under prayer
No.4. It is contended that defendant Nos.2 to 5, having
discharged their functions in the course of their employment
and in their respective capacities, cannot be called upon to
answer for decisions taken by them on behalf of defendant
No.1.

4.2 It is further submitted that, having regard to the contents
of the email, the resignation tendered by the plaintiff was
voluntary and was accompanied by six months' advance notice.
However, the resignation was accepted with effect from three
months thereafter, and the plaintiff was paid the salary to
which he was entitled for the remaining period of three months.

4.3 Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
5
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others , wherein it has been
held that, unless a right to some relief against a party is
established, a suit cannot be maintained against such person.

5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the writ petition papers.

5

(2005) 6 SCC 733

- 7 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025



6. The petitioner was employed by respondent No.1
pursuant to the offer of employment dated 24.05.2012. Thus,
an employer-employee relationship exists between the
petitioner and respondent No.1. The said relationship assumes
significance in the light of the reliefs sought in the suit. The
following prayers have been sought:

"1) To declare that the action of compulsorily
seeking the resignation of the plaintiff by the
First Defendant basing on the Investigation Report of
M/s. Ernst & Young-the Seventh Defendant is
bad in law and not binding on the Plaintiff;

ii) Consequently, to pass an order for re-instating
the Plaintiff to his old position till the date of his
retirement on 22-05-2026;

iii) Alternatively to pass an order directing the
First Defendant Company to pay the Plaintiff
Salaries and other benefits till the date of his
retirement on 22-05-2026;

iv) Directing the Defendants to pay the plaintiff
jointly and severally the damages towards loss of
future employment, loss of reputation, mental agony
and stress; The Plaintiff restricts the damages
payable by the defendants to Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and Court Fee is paid on Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

v) To allow the costs of the suit; and

vi) To pass such other order or orders as desired
by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and
circumstances
of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

- 8 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


7. The impugned resignation was submitted to respondent
No.1 and was accepted by the competent authority, respondent
No.1 being a juristic person. A juristic person cannot act by
itself; it acts through competent persons entrusted with
different roles and responsibilities. The acts and deeds of such
competent authorities, when performed on behalf of the juristic
person, would bind respondent No.1, unless respondent No.1
pleads that such acts were excessive or unauthorised. No such
plea is forthcoming in the present case. On the contrary,
respondent No.1, in its written statement, has categorically
admitted the actions of respondent Nos.2 to 5 as actions
performed on its behalf and has undertaken that, in the event
of any damages being awarded on account of such actions, the
same would be discharged by respondent No.1.

8. A perusal of the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff has
pleaded that the alleged irregularities noticed by defendant
No.7 were acted upon at the instructions and insistence of
defendant Nos.2 to 5. It is further pleaded that defendant No.4
forced, coerced and warned the plaintiff to submit his
resignation immediately, failing which he would be terminated
from service. A categorical allegation is made that defendant
Nos.2 to 5 insisted upon the plaintiff submitting an

- 9 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


unconditional resignation. Whether the resignation was
tendered voluntarily or under coercion is a matter for trial and
is to be adjudicated by the trial Court in the pending suit.

9. However, for the limited purpose of examining the issue
of coercion in the present petition, it would be relevant to refer
to certain documents. As per the e-mail dated 21.12.2021, the
petitioner tendered his resignation for acceptance and sought
to be relieved from service with effect from 30.06.2022.
Thereafter, by e-mail dated 03.03.2022, it was communicated
that the resignation had been accepted and that the last
working day would be 31.03.2022.

10. In order to determine whether a party is a proper or
necessary party for adjudication of the suit and for passing an
effective decree, the cause of action pleaded against such
party, as well as the reliefs sought, are required to be
examined. In the present case, the cause of action pleaded is
that the defendants compelled and forced the plaintiff to tender
his resignation on 21.12.2021. The primary relief sought in the
suit is against respondent No.1. Prayer No.4, relating to
damages, may, at the most, have a remote connection with
respondent Nos.2 to 5. However, in view of the categorical

- 10 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


admission and undertaking made by respondent No.1 in its
written statement to discharge any liability towards damages
on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5, respondent Nos.2 to 5
cannot be held as necessary parties to the suit.

11. It is also to be noticed that respondent Nos.2 to 5 acted
on behalf of respondent No.1 in discharge of the duties and
responsibilities entrusted to them, and respondent No.1 has
expressly owned and accepted such acts. In the absence of any
specific pleading attributing independent or personal acts of
liability to respondent Nos.2 to 5, they cannot be held to be
necessary parties to a suit in which the primary relief is sought
against respondent No.1-Company merely because they
discharged their functions for and on behalf of respondent
No.1-Company.

12. No doubt, applying the principle of dominus litis, the
plaintiff is entitled to choose the parties against whom he seeks
to prosecute the suit. However, the said principle cannot be
extended to permit the continuation of a suit against a person
who is found to be neither a proper nor a necessary party.
Otherwise, it would result in compelling a person against whom

- 11 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


no cause of action is disclosed and against whom no effective
relief is sought to participate in the proceedings.

13. The primary relief in the present suit is sought against
respondent No.1, which is a juristic person. A juristic person
acts through its authorised and competent representatives, and
the acts performed by such representatives in the course of
their employment bind the juristic person. In view of the
specific admission and undertaking of respondent No.1 to
discharge any liability towards damages, if ultimately awarded,
on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5, the latter cannot be held to
be necessary parties to the suit.

14. As rightly observed by the trial Court, if the presence of
respondent Nos.2 to 5 is considered necessary for adjudication
of the issues arising in the suit, either the plaintiff/petitioner or
respondent No.1 may summon them as witnesses. The mere
fact that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were involved in the decision-
making process, while acting in their capacity as employees of
respondent No.1, would not render them personally liable for
the acts done on behalf of the company. The liability, if any,
arising out of such acts would remain with the company,
namely, respondent No.1.

- 12 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025



15. In Jagdip Singh Chowhan (supra), the matter related
to a disciplinary inquiry against a public servant. Defendant
No.3 therein was held to be a necessary party, applying the
principle of dominus litis, in view of the specific allegations of
personal malice and prejudice pleaded against the said
defendant.

16. In Clarinda D'Souza (supra), it was held that, even if a
suit amounts to a flagrant misuse of the process of law in
entertaining the plaint, the appropriate remedy is to have the
suit dismissed upon adjudication on merits.

17. In National Spot Exchange Limited (supra), the Court
was dealing with the issue of immunity under the provisions of
the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and
Privileges) Act, 1958, arising from the immunity available to an
employee of the Corporation in respect of acts performed in his
official capacity.

18. Anjum Nath (supra), a judgment of the Delhi High
Court, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the
said case, the application seeking deletion of defendant Nos.3
and 4 on the ground that they had been improperly joined was

- 13 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


filed by British Airways and not by the said defendants
themselves. It was further observed that the plaintiff had
disclosed a cause of action against the said defendants and had
sought relief against them. The Court also found that the said
defendants had been properly joined and that their presence
was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication and
settlement of all the questions involved in the suit.

19. The judgments relied by learned counsel for the
petitioner, are based on facts therein, hence, they are not
applicable to the facts of the present case.

20. Except for a bald assertion that the defendants coerced
the plaintiff into tendering an unconditional and forceful
resignation, neither a specific cause of action is made out nor
any substantive relief is sought against respondent Nos.2 to 5.
The only relief which may remotely relate to them is prayer
No.4, seeking damages. For the effective adjudication and
enforcement of such relief, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not
necessary parties, in view of the categorical admission and
undertaking of respondent No.1 to bear such liability, subject to
the outcome of the suit.

- 14 -
WP No. 22880 of 2025


21. In the present case, in the absence of any specific
pleading requiring an answer from respondent Nos.2 to 5, or
any independent cause of action or relief against them, the trial
Court was justified in deleting respondent Nos.2 to 5 from the
array of defendants.

22. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned
order warranting interference.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .




Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE



VBS