NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES V
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES V
C
PARAMESHWARA.
BY
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.
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.
Case: National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara
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.