Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ritika Jain vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 August, 2020

Author: Jyoti Singh

Bench: Jyoti Singh

$~A-14
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P. (C) 5329/2020
      RITIKA JAIN                                   ..... Petitioner
                         Through        Mr. Rajiv Sarin and Mr. Rajeev K.
                                        Aggarwal, Advocates

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         ..... Respondents
                    Through             Ms. Mrinalini Sen and Ms. Kritika
                                        Gupta, Advocates for R-1
                                        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Binay Kumar,
                                        Mr. Chetan Garg, Advocates with Mr.
                                        Arun Kumar Sinha, MD for R-2
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
                   ORDER

% 18.08.2020 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. CM 19246/2020 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 5329/2020 and CM 19247/2020 Ms. Mrinalini Sen appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 submit that the complete set of paper book has not been supplied to them. Mr. Sarin learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to supply complete set of paper book via e-mail to the learned counsels for the Respondents within a period of two days from today.

Learned counsels for the Respondents raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition in this Court on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for Respondent no.2 further submits that there is an Arbitration Clause in the contract between the parties and on that account also the present petition is not maintainable.

Mr. Kumar also argues that the contract of the Petitioner has expired on 30.06.2020 by efflux of time and the non-extension of the contract has nothing to do with the allegations of sexual harassment levelled by the Petitioner against one of the senior officers of the Company. He further argues that it is settled law that Courts cannot extend the contract of service between the parties.

List the petition for further consideration on 24.08.2020. In case the parties wish to rely on any judgements on the next date of hearing, the same shall be filed before the next date of hearing.

JYOTI SINGH, J AUGUST 18, 2020 yg