Delhi District Court
Satya Praaksh Baranwal vs Aswath Innovation Pvt. Ltd on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPALI SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03)
PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.: 252/2022
CNR No. DLND01-001668-2022
In the matter of:
Satya Prakash Baranwal,
S/o Shri Tribeni Prasad Baranwal,
R/o oI-7, Sector 12,
Gautam Budhhnagar, Noida,
UP 201301.
........ Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ashwath Innovation Pvt. Ltd.
......Defendant no. 1
2. Ashwath Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
......Defendant no. 2
3. Sh. Krishnan Kumar, Director
Ashwath Group of Companies
......Defendant no. 3
All defendants having office at :
4th Floor, Building No. 2, Masoodpur Farms,
Near JIMS, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
Date of institution of suit : 02.03.2022
Judgment reserved on : 29.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.04.2026
JUDGMENT
CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 1 of 14
1. The present commercial suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking recovery of amount of Rs.10,98,129/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till its realization along with cost.
2. Brief facts pertaining to the present suit as detailed in the plaint are that the plaintiff joined defendant no. 2 on 01.04.2015 as a consultant for the remuneration of Rs. 75,000/- per month alongwith 5% of the receipts of the business executed in the Govt. Department i.e. CPWD, PWD and DDA and another 5% of the receipts of the business obtained from other Govt. Departments i.e. NDMC, DJB, MCD, NBCC, HLL etc. and other private clients for the purpose of business undertaken by defendant no. 2.
3. The services of plaintiff were terminated by the defendant no. 2 w.e.f. 01.05.2019. Thereupon, defendant nos. 1 & 2 engaged the plaintiff vide appointment letter dated 02.05.2019 as a Consultant for rain water harvesting services and vertical gardening services respectively for a remuneration of Rs. 37,500/- per month each for along with incentive of 1% of the business procured for defendant no. 2 and incentive of 2.5% of the business procured for defendant no. 1.
4. In terms of the appointment letter dated 02.05.2019, the services of the plaintiff stood terminated on 01.05.2020 and were not renewed thereafter by the defendants. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 has not paid a sum of Rs. 2,41,210/- to the plaintiff towards his salary for the period 02.05.2019 - 01.05.2020 even though TDS of a sum of Rs. 41,129/- has been CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 2 of 14 paid by defendant no. 1.
5. It is further stated that the defendant no. 2 has not paid a total sum of Rs. 7,08,494/- to the plaintiff towards his salary and incentives for the period between 02.05.2018 - 01.05.2020 even though TDS on salary of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the period 02.05.2019 - 01.05.2020, for a sum of Rs. 41,129/- has been paid by defendant no. 2.
6. It is accordingly stated that a total sum of Rs. 9,49,704/- is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
7. It is urged that despite repeated reminders, no payment was forthcoming from the defendants and thereafter the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 12.10.2021, however, no reply was received from the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery.
8. Pursuant to the issuance of summons, defendants appeared and filed the Written Statement.
9. In the joint Written Statement the defendants denied the allegations and the averments of the plaintiff and urged that the plaintiff has filed forged and fabricated documents and has not come to the court with clean hands. It is stated that the plaintiff has illegally obtained the data of the defendants company and has used the same for causing wrongful gain to itself and wrongful loss to the defendants. It is urged that the plaintiff in a malafide manner had approached the clients of the defendants and indulged in corrupt practices owing to which the defendants had terminated the services of the plaintiff on 30.04.2019 after due diligence and it was also made clear to the CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 3 of 14 plaintiff that there were no outstanding dues nor was he eligible for other benefits. It is stated that at the time of joining, the plaintiff had represented himself to be retired as Chief Engineer from CPWD having goods contacts in the market and expertise in the field and his job was to bring work for the defendants and if the plaintiff was unable to do so, the plaintiff was to be relieved from services. Since the plaintiff failed to achieve the targets and finally his services were terminated after settling full and final amount. It is further stated that the wife of plaintiff had joined the defendant in 2015 and used to take leaves without sanction and was not regular at her work. It is stated that since the plaintiff failed to discharge his duties and also indulged in misconduct, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. The defendants denied that any TDS had been deducted from the payment of the plaintiff.
10. No replication was filed by the plaintiff.
11. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed in the present suit :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,98,129/- as prayed for? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
3) Relief.
12. In support of its claim, plaintiff examined himself i.e. Satya Prakash Baranwal as PW1.CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 4 of 14
13. PW1 Sh. Satya Prakash Baranwal in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A1), reiterated the averments made in the plaint and relied upon the following relevant documents:-
1. Appointment Letter dated 01.04.2015 as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
2. Termination of service with defendant no. 2 as Mark PW1/2.
3. Letters of Appointment dated 02.05.2019 for consultancy service with defendant nos. 1 & 2 as Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 (colly) respectively.
4. Termination of service for consultancy as Ex.
PW1/5(colly).
5. Statement of incentives for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 as Mark PW1/6 (colly).
6. Statement of claim Mark PW1/7 (colly).
7. TDS Certificate as Ex. PW1/8 (colly).
8. Legal notice dated 12.10.2021 as Mark PW1/9 and its postal receipt alongwith delivery report as Ex. PW1/10 (colly).
9. Non-starter report as Ex. PW1/11.
14. After examination of PW1, PE was closed vide order dated 25.07.2023.
15. The defendants filed the affidavit of evidence of Mr. Shekhar S.Srivastava and subsequently of Mr. Krishan Kumar, Director of Ashwath Infratech, however, despite opportunities the defendants could not lead their evidence and vide order dated 25.07.2025, DE stood closed by the order of the Court
16. I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. Perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has also arrayed Sh. Krishna Kumar, Director of Ashwath Group of Companies, as defendant no. 3 in the present suit, however, since the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are companies, therefore, there is no CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 5 of 14 personal liability of defendant no. 3 qua the claims against defendant nos. 1 & 2. Hence, defendant no. 3 is not personally liable towards the claims of the plaintiff.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS :
Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,98,129/- as prayed for?
18. Onus to prove issue no. 1 was on the plaintiff. In this regard PW1 in his affidavit of evidence reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had retired as Chief Engineer from CPWD in July 2009 after completing 37 years of service in CPWD. His scope of work with defendant no. 2, who was engaged in the field of water harvesting, was to introduce the product of defendant no. 2 and to promote the same in the govt. departments i.e. CPWD, PWD, MCD, DDA and NDMC etc. PW1 stated that he was engaged as a Consultant with defendant no. 2 from April 2015 to April 2020 and he was getting consultancy charges of Rs. 75,000/- per month with 5% incentive for the executed work. He denied that he was appointed as a Technical Head and not as a Consultant with defendant no. 2. He volunteered that he was working as a Consultant and upon approaching various offices, he represented himself as the Technical Head.
19. PW1 affirmed that he was also appointed as a Consultant with defendant no. 1 on 02.05.2019. He provided Consultancy to defendant no. 1 in respect of vertical plantation.
PW1 denied that defendant no. 1 did not get any work in CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 6 of 14 pursuance of the consultancy services provided by him. He stated that there was an understanding between him and defendants that a list of work executed and the payments received, would be made at the year end and the incentives would be paid.
20. PW1 relied upon the list of work for incentives for the year 2017-2018 Mark PW1/6 (colly) and for the year 2018- 2019 Mark PW1/7 (colly). He stated that the said lists were prepared by him in consultation with the accounts branch of the defendants. He was not aware if the Accounts Department of defendant no. 1 & 2 were same or different. He also did not remember the names of the officials in whose consultation the aforesaid lists were prepared. He denied that documents Mark PW1/6 (colly) and Mark PW1/7 (Colly) were forged and fabricated. PW1 deposed that he had not filed any document to show the value of work procured for defendant nos. 1 & 2, on the basis of which he had calculated the incentives. He stated that he had not filed his Income Tax Returns for the year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. He had placed the TDS Certificate on record.
21. The defendants filed the affidavit of evidence of Mr. Shekhar S.Srivastava and subsequently of Mr. Krishan Kumar, Director of Ashwath Infra Tech, however, despite opportunities the defendants could not lead their evidence and vide order dated 25.07.2025 DE stood closed by the order of the Court and hence, no evidence has been led by the defendants.
22. From a perusal of testimony of PW1 it emerges that PW1 was engaged as a Consultant by defendant no. 2 on CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 7 of 14 01.04.2015 vide the Consultancy Agreement Ex. PW1/1 and his services continued with defendant no. 2 till 01.05.2019, when he was terminated vide Mark PW1/2. The said factum of termination of services of the plaintiff by defendant no. 2 on 01.05.2019 is admitted by the defendants in the Written Statement. No suggestion has been given to PW1 that document Mark PW1/2 is a forged or fabricated document.
23. Though the defendants in their Written Statement have stated that the services of the plaintiff were terminated by defendant no. 2 owing to poor performance, failure to achieve targets and activities detrimental to the defendants, however, no suggestion in that regard had been put to PW1 nor any evidence has been led by defendants to prove the aforesaid facts. Moreover, the letter of termination of services Mark-PW1/2 reads as under :
" Subject: Termination of Services.
Dear Mr. Baranwal, Referring to the last discussion, we regret to inform you formally that your consulting services as "Consultant" with our company, Ashwath Infratech Private Limited, is being terminated w.e.f. 01/05/2019. However, if you so desire, your services can be reviewed and renewed purely on incentive basis on the terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed.
We thank you towards assisting us with your consulting services and being a part of Ashwath Infratech Private Limited, would also extend our best wishes for all your future endeavours.
Kindly handover all the necessay documents, pending assignments and office assets, if any, to the concern person. Please contact our accounts department for your full and final payments, if any."
24. Perusal of the aforesaid letter reveals that no CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 8 of 14 complaint has been raised by the defendants regarding the deficiency in services provided by the plaintiff and infact pursuant thereto both defendant no. 1 & 2 appointed the plaintiff for his consultancy services on the next day itself i.e. 02.05.2019 vide Letter of Appointment of defendant no. 1 Ex. PW1/3 (colly) and Letter of Appointment of defendant no. 2 Ex. PW1/4 (colly). In the event the defendants had any grievances regarding the consultancy services provided by the plaintiff, then there is no reason why appointment letters were again issued by the defendants on 02.05.2019 itself. Hence, the contention of the defendants that the services of the plaintiff were terminated owing to grievances against him, has no substance.
25. It may be noted that the term of appointment as per Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 is from 02.05.2019, which was to terminate on 01.05.2020. Subsequently, upon expiry of the term, vide Expiry of Appointment Letter dated 01.05.2020, Mark PW1/5 (colly), the services of the plaintiff were terminated. No grievance was raised against the plaintiff in the said letter. The defendants have not disputed the said letter dated 01.05.2020 issued by Ashwath Group of Companies.
26. It is deposed by the plaintiff that total remuneration to be received by him for the period between 02.05.2019 to 01.05.2020 was Rs. 4,50,000/- each from both the defendants. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff has not placed on record any document to prove that an amount remained due to the plaintiff from the defendants towards salary as reflected in the chart detailed in Ex. PW1/A at para 5. It is CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 9 of 14 further stated that the plaintiff has categorically deposed that in the tabulated chart the word 'salary' has been mentioned mistakenly. Perusal of Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4, however, reveals that as per Clause-3 of the said Letters of Appointment, the plaintiff was entitled to a payment of Rs. 37,500/- on monthly basis. The plaintiff has mentioned the said amount in the chart in para 5 of Ex. PW1/A as 'salary' for the period between 02.05.2019 to 01.05.2020, which totals to Rs. 4,50,000/-. The fact that PW1 has used the word 'salary' instead of payment or remuneration would not entail that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as sought for, regarding payment of the said remuneration. PW1 has deposed that defendant no. 1 had paid Rs. 1,67,661/- to him during the said period and no remuneration was paid by defendant no. 2 during that period.
27. The plaintiff has placed on record Form-26AS Ex. PW1/8 (colly) to indicate that defendants have deposited TDS amount of Rs. 41,129/- each towards the total amount due to the plaintiff for the abovesaid period. However, it is stated that the remuneration amount was not credited to the account of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had only received a sum of Rs. 1,67,661/- from defendant no. 1 and no remuneration was received during the said period from defendant no. 2. As discussed, the plaintiff was appointed by the defendants on 02.05.2019 vide Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 and the services of the plaintiff were terminated on 01.05.2020. The defendants have deposited the TDS towards the remuneration of the plaintiff, which is reflected in Ex. PW1/8.
CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 10 of 1428. In M/s Utility Power Tech Ltd. vs. M/s Amit Traders, date of decision 15.05.2018, AIR online 2018 Delhi 926, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that issuance of TDS Certificate does not amount to an acknowledgment by the defendant and the Certificate is primarily to acknowledge the deduction of Tax at source. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that though the deduction of TDS by itself cannot be sufficient to impose liability, the totality of facts has to be considered.
29. In the Written Statement the defendants have stated that the services of the plaintiff were terminated after realization of full and final amount. It is also stated that since the plaintiff indulged in corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The defendants have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India, in Civil Appeal No. 6270/2012, dated 10.09.2020, in support of their contention.
30. As discussed hereinabove, the defendants have miserably failed to prove that the plaintiff indulged in any corruption, misappropriation or misconduct as alleged and hence, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Moreover, even though the defendants have stated in the Written Statement that the services of the plaintiff were terminated "after realization of full and final amount", however, the said assertion remains unsubstantiated in absence of any documentary or oral evidence to that effect.
31. In the present case manifestly the plaintiff was CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 11 of 14 appointed as a consultant by the defendants for the period commencing on 02.05.2019, which was terminated on 01.05.2020. The remuneration of the plaintiff also was fixed at Rs. 37,500/- per month each by the defendants. TDS for the said period was also deposited by the defendants. The defendants have not been able to prove any deficiencies in the services rendered by the plaintiff. Additionally, no evidence has been led by the defendants regarding the payment of remuneration made to the plaintiff during the said period. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff has not proved that no payment / remuneration was received by him, however, in that regard it is settled law that a person cannot be asked to prove a negative fact. On the other hand, the fact that payments were made by the defendants towards remuneration to the plaintiff could have been proved by the defendants by producing the necessary record, which they failed to do. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has been able to prove its claim for remuneration from the defendants for the period between 02.05.2019 till 01.05.2020.
32. It may however, be noted that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the veracity of the documents Mark PW1/6 (colly) relating to incentives payable to the plaintiff from the defendants in as much as the said document is not issued by the defendants. As per Ex. PW1/3, the plaintiff was entitled to an incentive of 2.5% of the business independently procured by him for defendant no. 1 and incentive of 1% of the business independently procured by him for defendant no. 2. Perusal of CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 12 of 14 Mark PW1/6 (colly) reveals that it is simply a calculation of incentives, which is not even signed or attested by any official of the defendants nor certified by the defendants or any Chartered Accountant or any Authorized person. PW1 has not examined any official with whose help the said document was prepared. Mark PW1/6 (colly) is a self created document and has not been substantiated by the record of defendants to show what was the business independently generated by the plaintiff. In absence of any support in the form of oral testimony or documents, Mark PW1/6 (colly) is not proved on record and hence, it cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff to prove its claim regarding incentives against the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the claim for incentives against the defendants.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (minus Rs. 41,129/- deposited as TDS by defendant no. 1) i.e. Rs. 4,08,871/- from defendant no. 2 towards remuneration for the period between 02.05.2019 to 01.05.2020. The plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- (minus Rs. 1,67,661/- plus Rs. 41,129/-) i.e. Rs. 2,41,210/- from defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has not been able to prove its claim regarding incentives. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?
34. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 13 of 14 future interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of till its realization, which in the opinion of this Court is exorbitant and unreasonable. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that simple interest @ 8% per annum would be just and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 4,08,871/- from defendant no. 2 as well as on the principal amount of Rs. 2,41,210/- from defendant no. 1 w.e.f. the date of filing of suit till its realization. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
35. In view of aforesaid discussion, present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 4,08,871/- from defendant no. 2 and Rs. 2,41,210/- from defendant no. 1 along with cost.
36. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 4,08,871/- from defendant no. 2 as well as on the principal amount of Rs. 2,41,210/- from defendant no. 1 w.e.f. the date of filing of suit till its realization.
37. Pre-institution mediation fees, if any, be also added to the cost.
38. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
39. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA Pronounced in the open Court SHARMA Date: 2026.04.30 16:49:30 +0530 on 30th April, 2026 ( Deepali Sharma ) District Judge (Commercial Court)-03 Patiala House, New Delhi CS (COMM): 252/22 SATYA PRAKASHBARANWAL VS. ASHWATH INNNOVATION PVT. LTD. & ORS. Page 14 of 14