Partners Of Firm Managing Lake Activities Trying To Stall Proceedings: Gujarat High Court Declines Impleadment In Vadodara Boat Capsize Case

While hearing a matter pertaining to the Vadodara boat capsize incident, Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 18) dismissed a plea moved by certain partners of Kotia Projects seeking impleadment, after noting that the "partners associated with the firm are trying to stall the proceedings" where the court was examining compensation to be given the victims from the "pocket of the partnership firm".

The high court further noted that the partnership firm had been impleaded not by the name of any director/partner, "rather through the director/partner", adding that despite  notice being issued to the firm over a month ago, it remained unrepresented. On January 18, 2024, a boat capsized in Harni Lake, resulting in the deaths of 12 children and two teachers who were on a school picnic. Private firm–M/s Kotia Projects was tasked with development of the lake project by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC). 

During the hearing on Friday, the advocate general appearing for the state informed a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi that in the last hearing the contractor was not present, so the matter had been kept today "particularly for this purpose".

After the court inquired if the contractor was present today, a counsel said that notice to the respondent firm was served to Vineet Kotia who was his client. He however said that Vineet Kotia had retired from Kotia Projects in November 2020.

At this stage the high court orally asked, "Do you have Vakalatnama to appear on his behalf?...this company that is M/s Kotia projects is impleaded in the writ petition, correct. Notice has been sent. We have not impleaded the director in his personal capacity but Kotia Project an an entity which will appear through the director. So, if you have any director's Vakalatnama, so appear. We are on the question of payment of compensation. If you are not appearing, we will proceed and decide the issue”.

On his submission that his client had retired prior to the incident the court orally said that an affidavit should have been brought to the court on this point. On the court's query the counsel said that there was no registered retirement deed and sought some time. The high court however said that it would not grant an adjournment, while noting that there was neither an affidavit nor a registered retirement deed before it today. 

Meanwhile, another counsel submitted that he was appearing for four other partners of the firm seeking impleadment in the matter. The high court however orally remarked that it was not looking at individual partners nor was it deciding the rights of the partners, noting that the partnership firm was itself a legal entity.

"We have (before us) partnership firm itself is a legal entity, correct. Whosoever is associated with the partnership firm has to come forward and file his response. Don't play this game. This is not a chessboard. We are not permitting you to do this. These oral instructions are not to be accommodated. We are not concerned with you...If you are making any submission, file Vakalatnama on behalf of M/s Kotia Projects. Till date there is no vakalatnama by anyone," the court orally said. 

Thereafter while dictating its order the high court noted the appearance of the counsel on behalf of Vineet Kotia, as well as his submission that he received instruction from his client stating that he was not the director rather a partner in the partnership firm and that he has retired from the partnership firm much before the incident in question.

The court in its order then noted, "All these submissions made at the bar are not supported by any material on record in spite of due service of notice for about more than one month there is no response to this court. The prayer...cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is nothing on record which would substantiate the contention of Mr Vineet Kotia...that he has no concern with the partnership firm...the partnership firm has been impleaded not by name of any director or partner. It is rather through the director/partner. Even if it is accepted for a moment that Mr Vineet Kotia has no concern with the partnership firm as on date, no other partner of the firm is appearing before us. No other partner has come forward to represent respondent no. 4 (firm). We therefore, hold that respondent no. 4 remains unrepresented in spite of receipt of notice of present PIL and therefore, proceed to decide the issue with the aid and assistance of the counsels appearing in the matter". 

With respect to the plea moved by four other partners seeking impleadment "in their individual capacity" the court said that when asked whether they were representing the firm, the court was informed that there are 13 partners in total and four of them cannot represent the partnership firm.

Dismissing the plea for impleadment of the four partners, high court thereafter in its order said, "It may be noted that the application seeking for joining party by four partners in their individual capacity is nothing but an effort to stall these proceedings, in as much as partnership firm can be represented by any of the partners. From the above noted submissions of two advocates appearing on behalf of the partners of the firm namely M/s Kotia Projects, it is evident that the partners associated with the partnership firm are trying to stall the proceedings where the court is examining the question of awarding compensation to the victims from the pocket of the partnership firm. Noticing this attitude of the partners of the firm M/s Kotia Projects who have been served with a notice of the present petition, we see no reason to adjourn the matter today to facilitate the newly impleaded respondent...(firm) to engage a counsel. We proceed with the matter with the finding that no one has put in appearance on behalf of M/s Kotia Projects in spite of service of notice about one and half months ago". 

It then proceeded to hear the matter and inquired about the issues listed for consideration. The Advocate General submitted that the foremost issue for consideration was the grant of compensation to the victims of the incident. Thereafter the counsel appearing for one of the victims submitted that an affidavit regarding the claims had been filed.

He said that an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs has been paid by the state government and Rs. 2 Lakhs has been remitted from the Prime Minister's Fund for the kin of the deceased victims. With respect to the injured persons an amount of Rs 50,000 has been paid by the state government and Rs 50,000 by the PM fund.

The high court thereafter orally inquired, “What is the status of injured? What is the gravity of injuries? Whether they are having any permanent disabilities?" The Counsel however submitted that he represents one kin of the victim who has lost his child and all the victims are the resident of Vadodara.

The court then said to the amicus curiae appearing in the matter, “You can give us correct figure. What is the situation of the victims to decide the issue....for determining the quantum of compensation.” The amicus further submitted that she will take instructions for the factual aspect and details.

The Court orally said that the help of Collector, Vadodara can be sought for providing the details. At this stage the Advocate General submitted that the details of all the deceased persons and injured people will be provided to the amicus curie.

The court thereafter in its order said, “In order to ascertain the quantum of compensation to the victims namely kin of the deceased and also injured victims which is to be paid by the erring contractor namely M/s Kotia Projects – respondent no. 4 herein, we require Collector – Vadodara to make an inquiry and present the details of the victims of both the categories before us. The said detail must contain the name, age and address of the victims. The application filed on behalf of one of the victims dated 12.09.2024 will be considered on the next date fixed after receipt of the report of the Collector”. 

It thereafter listed the matter on October 25. 

Case title: RE-MANAGEMENT OF THE WATER BODIES SUCH AS RESERVOIRS/PONDS/RIVERS/LAKES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT, & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ORS.