What does Order 1 Rule 8 CPC allow?

It allows one or more persons to sue or defend on behalf of many with the same interest in the suit, after court grants leave and issues public notice.

Is ‘same interest’ the same as ‘same cause of action’?

No. The key is common interest or common grievance, not identical causes of action or identical facts for every person.

Why was leave revoked in this case?

Because all non-promoter shareholders did not share a common grievance. Some might agree with the board changes; hence there was no uniform ‘same interest’.

Can shareholders bring a representative suit for market loss?

Only if they truly share a common legal interest/grievance. Mere similarity of holding shares or general price impact is not enough.

pramod p shah v ratan n tata 2017 scconline bom 5269

Pramod P. Shah v. Ratan N. Tata

Bombay High Court 2017 (2017) SCC OnLine Bom 5269 Civil Procedure 6–8 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India

Primary: Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, Representative Suit, Same Interest Test

Secondary: Shareholder Actions, Corporate Governance, Leave Revocation, Tata–Mistry

Published: 22 Oct 2025

Slug: pramod-p-shah-v-ratan-n-tata-2017-scconline-bom-5269

Quick Summary

Main point: To file a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the many persons must share the same interest—a common legal grievance. It is not enough that they are all shareholders or suffered similar market loss. In this Tata–Mistry dispute, not all non-promoter shareholders had the same stand. So, the High Court revoked the leave earlier granted under O1R8.

Issues

Should the leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC (representative suit) be revoked?

Rules

Core requirement: Sam e interest among the numerous persons—not sameness of cause of action.
There must be a common legal grievance they seek to redress together.
If a sizeable group may disagree with the relief claimed, O1R8 is not appropriate.

Facts (Timeline)

Plaintiffs were shareholders in several NSE/BSE-listed Tata Group companies.

They challenged Cyrus Mistry’s ouster and Ratan Tata’s appointment, alleging breach of Articles and governance norms.

Claimed collective loss of about ₹41,000 crore; sought declarations nullifying meetings/resolutions and damages of ₹41,832 crore.

Single Judge granted leave under O1R8 CPC to sue on behalf of numerous persons with the same interest.

On challenge, the High Court examined whether non-promoter shareholders shared a common grievance.

HC held interests were not uniform; leave under O1R8 was revoked.

Timeline of representative suit leave and revocation in Pramod P. Shah v. Ratan N. Tata

Arguments

Plaintiffs

All public shareholders share the same interest in lawful governance and board stability.
Price crash harmed everyone; suit should proceed representatively.

Opponents

Non-promoter shareholders are not uniform; many may support the board decisions.
No single common grievance; O1R8 leave must be revoked.

Judgment (Held)

The High Court ruled that while shareholders have a similar type of right in their shares, they did not have a common grievance about the board changes. Some may align with the plaintiffs; others may not. Hence, the “same interest” condition failed and the leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was revoked.

Judgment focus: Same Interest test under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC—leave revoked

Ratio Decidendi

Order 1 Rule 8 requires a shared legal interest or common grievance, not just the same status as shareholders.
Where the group is split on the relief sought, representative action is inapt.

Why It Matters

Sets a clear bar for representative suits in shareholder disputes: courts will not let one group speak for all unless there is a genuine, common legal interest.

Key Takeaways

Same interest ≠ same shareholding or same market loss.
Representative suits fail if the wider class is not united in grievance.
Courts protect dissenting class members from being bound by unwanted litigation.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: S.A.M.E. — Shared Aim, Mutual Grievance, Everyone aligned.

Shared Aim? Is the relief wanted by the whole class?
Mutual Grievance? Same legal complaint, not just similar status.
Everyone aligned? If class is split → no O1R8 leave.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Should leave for a representative suit under O1R8 be continued?

Rule: Needs same interest—a common legal grievance across the class, not just similar status.

Application: Shareholders’ views on the board changes were divided; no uniform grievance.

Conclusion: Leave revoked; suit cannot proceed representatively.

Glossary

Order 1 Rule 8 CPC: Provision for representative suits where many share the same interest; requires leave and notice.
Same Interest: A common legal grievance and alignment on the relief sought.
Leave: Court’s permission to proceed representatively; can be revoked if requirements fail.