Infosys Executives Stay Out Of Suit Over Allegedly Coerced Resignation, As Karnataka HC Cites Company’s Undertaking To Pay Any Damages Awarded

In brief

The question

1. Whether defendants 2–5 were necessary or proper parties to the suit, having regard to the pleaded cause of action and reliefs sought.

The court held

The High Court held that defendants 2–5 were neither necessary nor proper parties on the pleadings and reliefs in the suit, and that the trial court had committed no error in deleting them.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the order dated 2 July 2025.

01Facts

The petitioner, a former employee of respondent No. 1, sued the company and six other defendants, seeking a declaration that his resignation had been compelled and was unlawful, reinstatement or salary and benefits through his retirement date, and damages.

¶ 1–3.1, 6–8

He alleged that defendants 2–5 had caused an investigation and pressured him to resign.

¶ 1–3.1, 6–8

The trial court allowed applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC and deleted defendants 2–5 from the suit.

¶ 1–3.1, 6–8

Respondent No. 1 admitted that defendants 2–5 had acted on its behalf and undertook to meet any damages awarded on account of their acts.

¶ 7, 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether defendants 2–5 were necessary or proper parties to the suit, having regard to the pleaded cause of action and reliefs sought.

¶ 10–11, 20–21

ii.2. Whether the principle of dominus litis prevented their deletion from the suit.

¶ 12

03Law Applied

Order I Rule 10 CPC permits the court to determine whether a party is necessary or proper for effective adjudication.

¶ 10

A necessary party is one against whom a right to relief is established and whose presence is required for an effective decree; the plaintiff’s choice of parties under the principle of dominus litis does not require the court to retain a person who is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

¶ 12 · Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733, discussed at para 4.3

Acts performed by authorised representatives in the course of their functions bind the juristic person they represent, absent a plea that the acts were unauthorised or excessive.

¶ 7

Where the company owns those acts and undertakes to satisfy any resulting damages, its employees need not remain parties merely because they participated in the relevant decision-making.

¶ 10–14

04Reasoning

The principal relief—challenging the resignation and seeking reinstatement or employment benefits—was directed against respondent No. 1, the petitioner’s employer.

¶ 6–7, 10

Although the plaint alleged coercion by defendants 2–5, the court found no specific independent cause of action or substantive relief against them; the only potentially relevant claim was for damages.

¶ 8, 20

Respondent No. 1 had accepted the acts as having been done on its behalf and undertaken to satisfy any damages awarded, making the individuals’ presence unnecessary for effective adjudication or enforcement.

¶ 7, 10–14

The court therefore held that dominus litis did not justify retaining defendants 2–5, while noting they could be called as witnesses if required.

¶ 12, 14

05Holding

The High Court held that defendants 2–5 were neither necessary nor proper parties on the pleadings and reliefs in the suit, and that the trial court had committed no error in deleting them.

¶ 21–23

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the order dated 2 July 2025.

¶ 21–23

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF