Delhi District Court
Ananta Kuamr Swain vs Tara Machines And Tech Services Pvt Ltd ... on 24 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE - 01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 370/2022
In the matter of :
Ananta Kumar Swain
S/o Late Kulamani Swain
R/o Khasra No.656/1,
A-6, Shubham Apartment,
Ghitorni Village, Talab Road,
New Delhi - 110030
.....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Tara Machines & Tech Services Pvt. Ltd.
(Through its Directors)
1. Dr. Ashok Khosla
2. Dr. Arun Kumar
Company registered office at
B-32, Tara Crescent, Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi - 110016
Also at :
29, Village Ghitorni, M.G.Road,
Near Ghitorni Metro Station,
New Delhi - 110030
.....Defendants
Date of Institution : 04.06.2022
Arguments heard on : 09.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.04.2026
Decision : Decreed
CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 1/28
Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. Digitally
signed by
Ambika Ambika
Date:
singh
singh 2026.04.24
15:41:32
+0530
SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII CPC R/W SECTION 151 CPC FOR
RECOVERY OF RS.10,63,587/- WITH PENDENTELITE
AND FUTURE INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the Court shall decide the suit under order XXXVII CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for recovery of Rs.10,63,587/- with pendente-lite and future interest filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief and necessary facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.10,63,587/- along with pendent lite and future interest from the defendant company. It is averred that the plaintiff was initially appointed as an Accounts Assistant vide appointment letter dated 22.01.1997 issued by Development Alternatives, one of the group entities of the defendant and he joined his duties in New Delhi and duly complied with all joining formalities. It is submitted that the case of the plaintiff that he rendered his services diligently, honestly, and to the complete satisfaction of the management. Owing to his performance, he was promoted from time to time and entrusted with higher responsibilities. The plaintiff was subsequently promoted and transferred to Technology and Action for Rural Advancement on 01.05.2007, where he worked till 31.03.2009. Thereafter, he was again transferred to the defendant company, i.e., Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt. Ltd., where he continued his services till his termination. It is averred that during the course of his long service of more than 24 years, he rose to the position of General Manager CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 2/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. (Accounts) and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 95,500/-. He was also awarded recognition for his hard work by the defendant in the year 2013. It is further averred that in March 2018, the plaintiff's wife was diagnosed with brain cancer, due to which he had to avail leave for her treatment. Despite the personal hardship, the plaintiff continued to discharge his duties. It is submitted that the defendant started delaying payment of salary and eventually stopped paying salary from April 2019 onwards, citing financial difficulties. It is submitted that despite repeated assurances by the defendant that the pending salary would be cleared, no payment was made. During this period, the plaintiff faced severe financial constraints, and his wife unfortunately expired on 13.08.2019. It is argued that despite repeated requests, the defendant neither cleared the outstanding dues nor provided any satisfactory explanation. Instead, the plaintiff was allegedly harassed and pressurized. It is further stated that the services of the plaintiff were terminated abruptly on 01.11.2019 without any prior notice or justification. The plaintiff claims that a total amount of Rs.10,63,587/- remains unpaid towards his salary for the period April 2019 to October 2019, including gratuity amounting to Rs.4,77,719/- and other dues. It is also alleged that the defendant retained and misused the plaintiff's digital signature even after termination of his services. It is also submitted that the discrepancies exist in his provident fund contributions, as reflected on the EPFO portal, wherein contributions from earlier associated entities were not properly updated. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the Defendant upon which the defendant had put its appearance and has filed the written statement, raising CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 3/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present suit. It is contended that the plaint is not in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is liable to be rejected. The defendants have further stated that Defendant No. 2, who has been impleaded in the present suit, had already ceased to be associated with the defendant company prior to the institution of the suit, and therefore, no cause of action survives against him. On merits, the defendants have denied the allegations made by the plaintiff and have asserted that the plaintiff, being responsible for financial and regulatory compliances, failed to discharge his duties diligently. It is alleged that the plaintiff was entrusted with responsibilities such as filing returns, handling refunds, and dealing with regulatory authorities, which he failed to perform efficiently. The defendants have further alleged that the plaintiff was negligent in discharge of his duties and committed serious omissions while functioning as General Manager (Accounts). It is stated that such negligence resulted in financial irregularities and audit objections, causing loss and inconvenience to the defendant company.
4. Plaintiff filed the replication wherein it reiterated its case and controverted the stand taken by defendant in the written statement.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.10,63,587/-, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 4/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors.
3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of parties? OPD.
4. Relief.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon following documents :
1. Appointment letter issued by defendant to the plaintiff is Ex PW1/A (OSR);
2. Copy of salary slip of witness is Ex.PW1/B;
3. Copy of pay revision letter is Ex.PWI/C (OSR);
4. Copy of resignation mail issued by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 01.11.2019 is Ex.PW1/D;
5. Copy of termination letter is Ex.PW1/E (OSR);
6. Copy of receiving of handing over of company property alongwith digital signature is Ex.PW1/F (OSR);
7. Copy of death certificate of Ms. Asha Swain, wife of plaintiff alongwith medical documents is Ex. PW1/G (Colly.) (now marked as Mark PW1/G (Colly);
8. Copy of dues and claim of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/H;
9. Copy of e-mails between the plaintiff and the defendant for release of salary and gratuity is Ex.PW1/I (Colly.);
10. Copy of certificate of Appreciation is Ex PW1/J (OSR);
11. Copy of legal notice issued to the Defendant and postal receipt is Ex.PW1/L (Colly);
12. Copy of CBIC Circular no 180/12/2022-GST is Ex.PW1/M (now de-exhibited).
13. Certificate under Section 65B of IEA (qua the emails, salary slip) as Ex.PW1/N;CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 5/28
Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors.
14. Copy of Adahar Card as Ex.PW1/O (OSR);
15. Copy of Pan Card of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/P (OSR).
7. During cross-examination, witness deposed that he had joined the defendant company as accounts assistant and was assigned the duties of making entry of financial transactions in books of accounts and the Tax returns etc. were handled by Tax Consultants. Mr. A.K. Sharma, advocate at that time. He was promoted as associate accounts officer in Development Alternative in the year 1998 and he was assigned a duty to report to the seniors regarding preparation of utilisation certificate of different social projects besides his existing work. He was reported to Wing Commander J.N. Sahay. He was also preparing books of accounts. He was further transferred and promoted as Manager (accounts) in Society for technology and action for rural advancement of the same group. He further deposed that his duties gradually increased with dealing of vendors, suppliers and purchasers. He conducted the work of entering the receipt of payments in the books of accounts. He deposed that he was communicating with tax consultants and also helping them and also providing data to them, upon which they filed returns after checking books of accounts. He further deposed that if they had any doubts they would contact him as well as the Manager, Mr. Venekatesh who was the Senior Manager to whom he was reported and thereafter Mr. P.K. Singh. He remained on that post till 31.03.2009. Thereafter he was transferred to Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. of the same group as General Manager Accounts. It is further deposed that Mr.Jaydeep Mukherjee was the Chartered accounts, however, he was not on payroll of the Tara Machine but was on payroll of CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 6/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. Tara Life. He deposed that his responsibility was checking books of accounts, preparing financial reports like cash flow, monthly profit and loss account, getting books of accounts audited from auditors and assisting tax consultants for filing tax returns. He further deposed that as a general manager he was supplying information to chartered accountants and was assisted by junior staff along with Mr. Ranjeet Khosla who was the chief finance officer but was not on the payroll of the company. PW1 further deposed that he was providing tally data, C-form collected from parties in case of sale tax returns. He further deposed that he had a specific mail-ld in which he used to receive statutory communications. He was communicating the same to the management and based upon the decision of the management, do the work with the help of tax consultant. He further deposed that he remained general manager till termination i.e. 01.11.2019. On being specifically asked, the witness replied that he had filed on record his appointment letter dated 01.04.2017 whereby he was appointed as General Manager Accounts. He further deposed that he was earlier posted as Manager accounts in Tara Machines. He was specifically asked that he dealt with vendors and purchasers and as per his statement, he collected C- form from them and what he did with them during his tenure as Senior Manager and GM accounts from the year 2009 till 01.11.2019, to which witness replied that every year company sell goods to different parties on C- form basis. At that time selling through C-form, central tax was 2% without C-form the concerned goods were 5% and 12%. After getting C-form, he provided the same to consultant and they were deposited the same to sales tax department. When all the C-form of a particular year is collected CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 7/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. assessment done with sales tax department.
8. He was specifically asked to see Ex. DI/A (Colly.) from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2016, wherein it is stated that C-form have not been deposited to which witness replied that there were many parties who did not provide C- form. The company had sold to some parties those who are not eligible to provide C-form. Most of them are registered dealer, they were purchased through their relatives who were having sales tax registration some were private builders. After purchasing machines from company these private builder cancel their sales tax registration, after communicating with the above parties to collect the C-form. He intimated the matter to the management and the management appointed Mrs. Sanjana Goswami as an advocate then she sent her junior Mr. Vishwa Agarwal to sent legal notice to the above said parties to collect C-form.
9. PW1 Mr.Ananta Kumar Swain further deposed that in the monthly meeting, he informed to the management that after several reminders parties are not providing C-Forms. He voluntarily stated that the company has sold to the parties who were not eligible for providing C-Form, they were not registered under Central Sales Tax. He deposed that during his working period, every month from 2013 to 2019 he had informed the management regarding the parties, not providing C-forms verbally as well as through company's e-mail ID [email protected]. He deposed that he had not filed anything on record about the e-mail sent to the management regarding the lapses of C-form/other information of financial aspects. He deposed that he had not filed anything on court record other than the exhibited documents but there were many parties to whom legal notices were issued. He used to CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 8/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. send the mails to Mr.Ranjeet Khosla to seek instructions for taking action against the defaulting parties. He deposed that he verbally informed that someone tempered with his email Id and the work done by him but not in writing because password has been created by IT department, and they do not have the authority to change the password. He deposed that every password given by the IT is managed by the employee himself and it is confidential and IT department knows the same. He deposed that IT Department did not discovered him watching pornographic site on his official computer and he had intimated HR department that someone is watching going through the history of browser of the system. He deposed that he had not given anything in writing qua not watching the pornographic site but intimated the HR department that somebody is watching in his absence. He only provided documents for filing online returns with consultants for GST returns and Sales Tax returns.
10. PW1 Mr.Ananta Kumar Swain further deposed that he intimated the management to do something for the collection of C-Form or give him permission for assessment and in case of assessment done huge penalty and differential sales tax would be charged by sales tax department due to non- submission of C-Forms with regard to the communications received received from department of trade and taxes dated 03.06.2016, 15.01.2018, 18.12.2018. 18.02.2019, 02.03.2019 and 08.04.2019 for assessment year 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 and he was informed by the Management that they were appointing Mrs. Anjana Gosain for taking legal action. He deposed that he had submitted copy of legal notices to the associates of Mrs.Anjana Gosain and same has been placed on record in evidence as Ex.PW1/Q. He CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 9/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. deposed that he had not received any notice sent by the company. He deposed that he had not received any postal document after death of his wife he was staying alone in his home at Ghitorni and working in IMT Manesar, Gurugram from leaving his home at 08:00 AM and reaching at home around 08:00 to 08:30 PM. He deposed that he had neither received any notice qua forfeiture notice of gratuity or final order of gratuity sent by the company on 20.02.2020. He deposed that Tara Nirman Kendra was having savings account in Syndicate Bank, Tara Machines at Syndicate Bank and Tech Services at HDFC Bank (current account). He deposed that sometimes management used Syndicate Bank and sometimes HDFC Bank on the availability of funds for remitting the payments for filing of taxes. He deposed that Dr. Ashok Khosla, Dr. Arun Kumar, CEO of the company were the signing authorities for dealing with the banks. He deposed that in Tara Machines, accountant and accounts manager were preparing the details. He further deposed that he would check from book of accounts for the correctness of details and sending to authorized signatory for signatures and depositing of tax. He deposed that the company was entitled to receive the refund of the service tax for the year 2012 up to 2016-2017 having paid extra. He voluntarily submitted that the management denied not to get refund because they have cheated govt. huge amount of service tax. The company is generally trading and assembling brick making machine, handmade paper making machine, vertical shaft brick clean for which they were providing professional and consultant service to different parties these services are coming under service tax but company manipulated service tax in the name of information technology software). He deposed that his duty CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 10/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. timing was from 9.00 AM to 5.30 PM, generally in guard room their attendance was recorded manually for all seniors. Punching machine came during the period but it was inside the room of the head of the HR department and the machine was also not functioning sometimes. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
11. The defendant examined Mr.Neeraj Tyagi as DW1 and Mr.Aditya Vashishat as DW2. DW1 has tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon following documents :
1. Ex.D1/A- Copy of Government communication/notices issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes (DVAT) dated 03.06.2016, 15.01.2018, 18.12.2018, 18.02.2019, 23.03.2019, 08.04.2019 assessment proceedings of sale tax pending from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 i.e. already exhibited as Ex-DI/A (Colly.).
2. Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) - Copy of Board resolution dated 28.12.2021.
3. Mark DA- Copy of Authority letter dated 09.01.2023.
4. Ex.DW1/3-Copy of email dated 08.01.2020.
5. Ex.DW1/4 Copy of statement showing reconciliation of service tax payable and credit utilization of the years 2012-2013, 2013- 2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018.
6. Mark DB- Copy of notice dated 05.08.2022.
7. Ex.DW1/6-Copy of minutes of meeting dated 21.10.2019.
8. Ex.DW1/7 (OSR) Copy of attendance sheet from 01.01.2019 to CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 11/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors.
01.11.2019.
9. Ex.DW1/8 Copy of policy of code of conduct of the defendant company issued an effective 01.12.2017.
10. Ex.DW1/9 (Colly.) Copy of show cause notice dated 13.01.2020 about the forfeiture of gratuity was communicated to the plaintiff along with tracking report dated 15.01.2020,
11. Ex.DW1/10 Copy of order dated 20.02.2020 for forfeiture of gratuity.
12. Ex.DW1/11 Copy of certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
13. Ex.DW1/12 - Copy of screenshot of the plaintiff desktops using the pornographic website.
12. During cross-examination, DW1 deposed that he had joined Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. in December 2016 as Deputy Manager (HR and Admin) and worked there till April 2023 as Senior Manager, HR and Admin. He affirmed the suggestion that his linkedin profile is not updated and shows he was working with PCI India as a permanent employee. He did not remember the exact date of retirement of Mr. Arun Kumar as Director from Tara Machine and Tech Services. He deposed that the plaintiff was terminated in November 2019 but he did not remember whether Mr. Arun Kumar was retired from the post of Director before the termination of plaintiff or not. He affirmed the suggestion that if the retirement of Mr. Arun Kumar, Director mentioned on MCA record as 10.08.2021 is correct. He deposed that he has general awareness of sales tax CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 12/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. and service tax as they have day to day transactions with finance department though he had no experience in specified field. He deposed that his day to day transactions with finance department was limited to payroll, salary and employee related financial issues. He affirmed the suggestion that he had no direct dealings in context of sales and service tax with plaintiff. He deposed that he came to know about TRANS-1 form filing fault from the meeting which is organized by him being HR on weekly basis. He voluntarily deposed that in the meeting there were general discussions and he was asked about the service tax refund and C-forms as plaintiff was directly responsible for financial issues being general Manager. He deposed that the pending C-forms, TRANS-1 forms were pending since 2012 to 2016-17. He deposed that it came to his knowledge in the year 2018 that refund not credited in company's account of above forms. He deposed that in 2016, when he joined the plaintiff was questioned about the filing of forms and refund. He could not deposed when the service tax refund by government was closed but as per audit report it came to his knowledge that it is closed on 31.03.2018. He deposed that he was not aware that filing of TRANS-1 forms date was extended to 31.03.2020 as per order no. 01/2020-GST dated 07.02.2020 and again extended from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022. He was not aware whether the company has complied with TRANS-1 form refund after extension by government notification after the termination of plaintiff in 2019 as he was not from the finance department, however, he was aware that he did not seek the refund during his tenure. He affirmed the suggestion that the board resolution exhibited as Ex.DW1/1 does not bear the common seal of company. He deposed that there is no document on record reflecting CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 13/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. that the board meeting was called on 28.12.2021 at registered office of the company at B-32, Tara crescent, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 i.e. Mark DA. He affirmed the suggestion that the authority letter dated 09.01.2023 signed by Dr. Ashok Khosla, Director, which authorized him to execute the vakalatnama and also signed, verified the pleadings and documents including written statement filed on behalf of the defendant company does not have company seal. He further deposed that the defendant company provides technical services in the name of Tara Machines and Tech. Services Pvt. Ltd. but the company did not sale information technology software but supply the machines and provide its technical services. He denied the suggestion that the defendant company also selling Information Technology Software just to avoid service tax and not paying service tax to government to avoid service tax scrutiny from government. He deposed that prior to introducing GST, the purchaser used to provide C-Form to the seller, then seller can claim the tax exemption. He affirmed the suggestion that there is no relation between C-Form and GST/Service Tax. He deposed that he had no knowledge if the plaintiff had sent email to Management and concerned Marketing Person and also informed the management in monthly meeting about non collection of C- Form from the parties. He deposed that he had no knowledge whether the legal notice was sent to the parties for non-collection of C-Form has been sent from the office of Ms.Anjana Gosain (Counsel for the defendant). After seeing the Ex.PW1/Q, witness states that the legal notice has been sent to the parties for submitting Form C. He deposed that if the parties will not provide C-Form inspite of sending legal notice, company has to pay CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 14/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. differential sales tax, interest of tax and penalties. It is duty of Marketing & Finance to collect the C-Form from different parties after sales. He deposed that he had informed the IT Team in June, 2019 and the Management and the meeting was called to discuss about the plaintiff watching pornographic material on office desktop. He voluntarily deposed that the team had investigated and found the relevant sources on the desktop of the plaintiff. He deposed that no written notice was given to the plaintiff before checking his desktop. He voluntarily stated that he was orally informed. No written acknowledgment is given after checking the desktop of the plaintiff. He voluntarily deposed that same thing happened in the year 2016 also and written warning was given to the plaintiff. He deposed that there is no acknowledgment of written warning given in 2016 on record and no disciplinary action has been taken against the plaintiff in 2016. He deposed that initially password was provided by the IT department, thereafter, user can change it. He deposed that IT team checked the desktop of the plaintiff after obtaining his user ID and password from him. He affirmed the suggestion that that Ex.DW1/12 is of 04.06.2016 and there is no document on record showing history of plaintiff's desktop of 2019. he voluntarily deposed that IT department has sufficient evidence.) He deposed that he did not member the exact date when the IT department had checked the plaintiff's desktop before termination of plaintiff. He affirmed the suggestion that the plaintiff was terminated on 01.11.2019. He deposed that in 2016, he was not employed with the defendant company. However, he had heard that the plaintiff had pleaded guilty for the incident in year 2016. He affirmed the suggestion that in the meeting held on 21.10.2019, plaintiff CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 15/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. had not signed and admitted any violation and lapse on his part. He voluntarily deposed that the plaintiff had attended the meeting and had admitted the violation but had not signed the minutes of meeting. He deposed that the sale person of the company decide to sale the product against the C-Form in consultation with finance department. He affirmed the suggestion that he had not hacked or log-in into the plaintiff's official desktop. He affirmed the suggestion that Trans-1 form filing and collection of C-Form was discussed in weekly meeting where all the seniors of the company were present in the meeting. He voluntarily deposed that all the discussion was happened after passing of due date. He deposed that the weekly meetings were organized from the year 2017 from his joining till he left the company. He affirmed the suggestion that Trans-1 Form and C- Form were pending since 2015 till 2023 when he left the company. He affirmed the suggestion that the management is already aware of pending of trans-1 form and C-Form from 2015. he deposed that he cannot say whether the Pension fund of the group company has not been transferred till now. He deposed that the company has not collected C-Form till his resignation in 2023. He affirmed the suggestion that IT department can break the password of employee computer in the absence of employee. He voluntarily deposed that the earlier password cannot be restored after it is break. After seeing the Ex.DW1/12, DW1 deposed that he cannot say whether it pertains to the desktop used by the plaintiff and IT department can answer about the same.
13. DW2 has tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW2/A and has relied upon following documents :
CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 16/28Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors.
1. Ex.DW1/12 Copy of screenshot of the plaintiff desktops using the pornographic website. (already exhibited by DW1)
14. During cross-examination, DW2 deposed that he was posted as Senior Manager, IT in year 2016 with the Technology and Action for Rural Advancement (NGO). He was posted as AGM (IT) in Tara Life Sustainabilities Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Currently he is posted as AGM (Admn. & IT) at Development Alternatives (NGO). All the above companies are of same group. He deposed that he visited to the Ghitorni Office where plaintiff was working in year 2016 on monthly basis as Senior Manager (IT). He affirmed the suggestion that all the systems installed at Ghitorni Office are Fire Wall Protected. He voluntarily deposed that after, April, 2019 no Fire Wall Protection was installed at Ghitorni Office. He deposed that the license was not renewed, thereafter due to financial crunch of the company, it was not protected from April, 2019. He deposed that the blocked sites (pornography sites) can not be assessed. He voluntarily deposed that the plaintiff has special permission and there was no blocking of site. He deposed that he and his staff used to install Fire Wall Protection at Ghitorni Office and they can access the same from anywhere. He affirmed the suggestion that from one network, the whole office desktop were protected. He further deposed that the plaintiff's desktop was Fire Wall Protected but more access was given to him being serve a Managerial post.
15. He affirmed the suggestion that when the system is Fire Wall protected pornography site category is blocked. He affirmed the suggestion that IT department provides Login/Password for the first time to the user and the user can change it afterwards after taking permission. He affirmed CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 17/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. the suggestion that the IT department can login the desktop of user without having the user ID and password by using Administrative Login and password.
16. He deposed that there were three persons employed with IT department of the Company in year 2019 working under him and he used to report to his Senior Mr.Kalyan Dutt. He affirmed the suggestion that when the screen shot of plaintiff's desktop was taken in 2016, he was not present there.
17. After seeing the document Ex.DW1/12, witness deposed that the same belonged to the plaintiff's desktop on the basis of search history dated 04.06.2016 where e-mails of the plaintiff is shown. He denied the suggestion that the Ex.DW1/12 does not belonged to the plaintiff's desktop. He deposed that verbal warning was issued to the plaintiff as per information provided to him by his senior Mr.Kalyan Dutt. He cannot say whether any document qua the allegations levelled against the plaintiff in year 2019 is filed on record or not to show the history of the plaintiff's desktop. He deposed that the backup of the plaintiff's desktop was saved by him as per instruction of the Management and the same is with him till date. He deposed that he has no knowledge whether any notice was issued to the plaintiff for accessing pornography sites. He deposed that the backup was taken by him in the presence of plaintiff. He deposed that the Management had verbally directed him to take backup of the plaintiff's desktop but no written permission was given. He deposed that he had not sent any e-mail/communication to the plaintiff after taking the backup of his desktop. He deposed that he has no knowledge if on the termination letter allegations CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 18/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. levied against the plaintiff is mentioned or not. He deposed that if user forgot the login ID and password of official email, IT issues fresh login ID and password. He deposed that he is not aware of the facts of the case. Thereafter, defendant evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
18. Thereafter final arguments were addressed by both the parties and after hearing final arguments and going the through the records carefully, my issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1 & 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.10,63,587/-, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
19. The onus to prove both these issue were upon the plaintiff.
20. It is the case of the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.10,63,587/- is due because of unpaid salary, gratuity and other employment related dues. On the other hand, it is the defence of the defendant that there was serious misconduct on the part of the plaintiff due to which financial loss has been caused to the defendant and the gratuity amount has been forfeited and remaining part of the amount has already been given to him.
21. First of all, it is an admitted case that the plaintiff was employee of the defendant. The defendant has not denied the employment but questioned the misconduct on the part of the plaintiff.
22. During the cross-examination of PW1 Mr.Ananta Kumar Swain, he has deposed that his duty was making entry of the financial transactions in CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 19/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. the books of account and it was the only duty assigned to him and the Tax returns were handled by the tax consultants. He further deposed that he was also doing entry of receipts of payments in the books of account and he was communicating with the tax consultants and also helping them. His responsibility was for checking the books of account, preparing financial report like cash flow, monthly profit & loss account, getting books of account audited from auditors and asissting tax consultant for filing tax returns. He had also filed on record appointment letter dated 01.04.2017 whereby he was appointed as General Manager (Accounts) as Ex.PW1/C. On being specifically asked that the document Ex.D1/A (Colly.) for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2016 shows that the C-Form have not been deposited, to which witness replied that there were many parties, who did not provide C-Form and the company had sold to some parties those who are not eligible to provide C-Form, most of them are registered dealer, they were purchased through their relatives who were having sales tax registration some were private builders. After purchasing machines from company these private builder cancel their sales tax registration, after communicating with the above parties to collect C-From, he intimated the matter to the management, who appointed Mrs. Sanjana Goswami as an Advocate then she sent her junior Mr.Vishwa Agarwal to sent legal notice to the abovesaid parties to collect C-Form. He further deposed that he has filed on record document to this effect as Ex.PW1/Q.
23. PW1 admitted that he had received the communication from department of trade and taxes dated 03.06.2016, 15.01.2018, 18.12.2018, 18.02.2019, 02.03.2019 & 08.04.2019 for assessment year 2013-2014 to CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 20/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. 2015-2016 and he had intimated to the management and requested for the collection of C-Form or give him permission for assessment and in case of assessment done huge penalty and differential sales tax would be charged by the sales tax department due to non submission of C-Forms. Management told him that they were appointing Mrs.Anjana Gosain for taking legal action. On being specifically asked whether he had received notice sent to him on 13.01.2020 qua payment of gratuity, to which he replied in negative.
24. On the other hand DW1 Mr.Neeraj Tyagi in his evidentiary affidavit Ex.DW1/A deposed that the plaintiff failed to perform his duties diligently and was guilty of serious negligence. He did not file the company's claim for refund of service tax through the TRANS-1 portal before its closure on 31.03.2018. That lapse was discovered during an audit in 2019, revealing that service tax receivables for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2017-2018 were not recovered, causing a loss of Rs. 39,23,865/- to the defendant. The plaintiff, who was serving as General Manager (Accounts), was informed of this negligence orally in June 2019 and via email dated 08.01.2020. Despite this, he remained negligent, failed to recover the dues, and did not report the matter to higher management.
25. He further stated in his evidentiary affidavit Ex.DW1/A that Plaintiff committed serious lapses by failing to obtain C-Forms from buyers and submit them to the authorities for claiming sales tax refunds, resulting in a loss of Rs.82,15,922/- to the Defendant. The Plaintiff further failed to respond to various government notices issued between 2016 to 2019 and neglected to attend pending sales tax assessment proceedings for FY 2013- CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 21/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. 2014 to 2015-2016. That led to an additional liability of Rs. 2,32,81,356/- as per notice dated 05.08.2022 issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes (DVAT). Despite being aware, the Plaintiff failed to take corrective action or inform higher management, causing a total loss of Rs.2,72,05,221/- to the Defendant. Additionally, the Plaintiff, being authorized signatory, failed to comply with notice dated 27.03.2017 (DVAT-24) requiring payment of Rs. 1,16,213/- and submission of details in Form DVAT-27A, reflecting gross negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted into huge financial loss to the defendant company.
26. If we look at the entire suit as well as evidence, it is crystal clear that there is serious allegation of misconduct against the plaintiff, however, that does not amount itself extinguish the salary liability of the defendant as the salary cannot be withheld without due process. The plaintiff has produced on record documentary evidence showing non-payment of salary from April, 2019 onwards. However, there has been no clear documentary evidence to prove that actual payment for relevant period has been made by the defendants. The defendant has made serious allegations regarding financial misconduct, mismanagement, failure to take proper action against non receipt of C-Forms and non-compliance of his statutory duties, however, the evidence does not show that there has been any independent audit report. Similarly, no documents have been produced in evidence to show that there has been losses caused to the defendant solely by the conduct of the plaintiff. There is nothing on record which suggest that there is any disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff.
27. There is no enquiry report or the findings against the plaintiff that has CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 22/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. been placed on record. The defendant has relied largely on internal assertions like plaintiff failed to take appropriate action leading to financial loss. However, the allegations of negligence must be supported by the concrete proof. DW1 Mr.Neeraj Tyagi has deposed in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge whether the legal notice was sent to the parties for non-collection of C-Form or it was ever been sent by the office of counsel for defendant Mrs.Anjana Gosain. He further admitted that the party who does not provided C-Form despite notice, the company has to pay differential sales tax, interest of tax and penalty. Meaning thereby, it was not entirely responsibility of the plaintiff due to which the losses may have been suffered by the defendant company. DW1 has also admitted that there is no acknowledgment or written communication of year 2016 is on record and no disciplinary action was taken against the plaintiff in year 2016. DW1 also admitted that the company did not collected C-Form till the resignation of the plaintiff. The defendant sought to evade the liability by alleging staggering financial losses of Rs.39,23,865/- and total loss of Rs.2,75,05,221/-. However, no audited accounts has been brought on record. There is no documentary proof linking alleged loss to plaintiff. DW1 deposed that if the parties will not provide C-Form inspite of sending legal notice, company has to pay differential sales tax, interest of tax and penalties. Meaning thereby, the loss, if any, in that case would not be solely due to the responsibility of the plaintiff.
28. Another instance of serious misconduct by the plaintiff was involving access to pornographic websites on his office desktop during working hours. DW1 in his evidence affidavit deposed that on 6 June 2016, Mr. Kalyan CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 23/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. Dutt (IT Head) had personally warned the plaintiff and instructed him to refrain from such conduct. Based on the plaintiff's assurance, no formal complaint was filed or reported to the management, however, screenshots and browser history were preserved as evidence which was duly signed by Mr. Kalyan Dutt.
29. Regarding the pornographic content, DW1 Mr.Neeraj Tyagi has admitted that no notice was given before checking his desktop, however he was orally informed. Further, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that there was any proof of his seeing pornographic content. The defendant alleged misconduct of serious nature but astonishingly, there is evidentiary proof like IT logs or other internet login history record has been filed which is of the plaintiff desktop/computer. Though some internet browsing history record i.e. Ex.DW1/12 was filed, however, there is nothing on record which ensures that the desktop belonged to plaintiff only. There is no co-worker who has been examined as a witness to prove the same. The absence of all this raises a serious doubt about the credibility of the allegations of the defendant. He deposed that the team had investigated and found the relevant sources on the desktop of the plaintiff. If it was investigated then there is no explanation as to why this investigation report has not been filed. He also admitted that IT Department can break the password of the desktop of the employee. Thus, it was not the case that only plaintiff had the access to his desktop. Other persons from company could have access to the same. The allegations appear to be just an after-thought to justify withholding dues.
30. DW2 Sh. Aditya Vashishat has deposed that there was a IT CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 24/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. department who provide the login ID and password for the first time to the user and IT department can login the desktop of user without having the user ID and password by using administrative login and password. Meaning thereby, the there were other people who could access the desktop of the plaintiff as per the record Ex.DW1/12 which is a document of plaintiff desktop on the basis of search history dated 04.06.2016. However, he maintained the stand that the verbal warning was given to the plaintiff. The DW1 Mr.Neeraj Tyagi deposed that the team had investigated and found the relevant sources on the desktop of plaintiff. If it was investigated then there is no explanation as to why this investigation report has not been filed. DW1 Sh.Neeraj Tyagi deposed that Ex.DW1/12 bears the date as 04.06.2016 and there was no document on record showing browsing history of plaintiff's desktop of the year 2019, however, he voluntarily deposed that the IT department has sufficient evidence. Though to the best knowledge of the defendant, this sufficient proof/evidence has not produced in the Court. There is no record or material of actual misconduct and negligence on record which conclusively prove the same. As per the plaint of the plaintiff, the misconduct regarding the watching pornographic material was discovered in the year 2016. However, plaintiff continued to remain in service till 2019. There is no explanation then why, plaintiff continued to be remained in service by the defendant till 2019.
31. Most importantly, the termination letter i.e. Ex.PW1/C does not show any detailed findings regarding misconduct of the plaintiff. The contents of the termination letter is reproduced below :
"We have observed and found that you have been regularly violating the CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 25/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors.
policy on Code of Conduct over the past several months. The Code of Conduct as prescribed to each employee is a mandatory regulation to be followed and no violation of any of its clauses will be tolerated.
To quote the policy, it is clearly mentioned that: "By adhering to the Code of Conduct each member actively commits to proactively build a workplace culture that reflects the Company's values. In such a culture, there is no room for improper conduct or unethical behavior."
This is to inform you that your services with TARA Machines & Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. is terminated with immediate effect i.e. 01-Nov-2019, for the violation of the Code of Conduct.
You are required to hand over your responsibilities and all company documents to the assigned person in Accounts."
32. Perusal of the above mentioned termination letter i.e. Ex.PW1/C shows that the cause assigned for termination is violation of Code of conduct. However, as I have discussed in preceding paragraphs, no enquiry report has been filed by the defendant. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to represent his case or he was even heard during such enquiry. It is well settled law that the termination of service cannot be effected arbitrarily and the rights of the employee must be protected and safeguarded after due compliance with the principles of natural justice.
33. The defendant has relied on the payment of Gratuity Act for the forfeiture of the gratuity. However, the law reflects that there has to be misconduct and loss caused. However, there is absolutely nothing on record which suggest the quantified loss attributable to the defendant was because of misconduct of the plaintiff. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was ever heard or given an opportunity to represent his CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 26/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. case. therefore, the forfeiture of gratuity is legally unsustainable. Moreover, the defendant's own communication i.e. Ex.PW1/I supported by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.PW1/N states that the gratuity has been processed. Therefore, the defendant has remained inconsistent, it first acknowledged the liability, later, forfeited the same.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, though the defendant has tried to fasten the responsibility of loss caused due to misconduct of the plaintiff, however, they have failed to prove the misconduct on the record. There is no record of independent audit report or disciplinary proceedings, let alone any indication that the plaintiff was heard or the principles of natural justice were followed. The defendant's case has reflected an unsatisfactory approach where an employer seeks to defeat legitimate employee dues by raising sweeping and unsubstantiated allegation. The plaintiff has been employee of the defendant and served it for more than 24 years. The Court cannot permit statutory and contractual rights to be defeated by bald assertions without any evidence. The plaintiff on the other hand proved its case with a clear documented and consistent claim.
35. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs.10,63,587/- and the interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its actual realisation.
36. Issue No.3 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of parties? OPD.
37. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant, however, defendant has not lead any evidence regarding the same. The defendant has taken the CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 27/28 Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors. plea in the WS that suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. However, the plea has been taken in a bald and general manner. The present suit is essentially for recovery of employment dues by the plaintiff from his employer i.e. defendant company. The relationship of employer and employee is admitted. An effective and complete adjudication of dispute can be very well made between esixting parties. Absolutely, no material or evidence has been brought on record to show that suit is bad for misjoinder or non- joinder of the parties. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
38. Relief :
39. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs.10,63,587/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its actual realisation. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Ambika Ambika singh
Date:
Announced in the Open Court singh 2026.04.24
15:41:39
on 24.04.2026 +0530
(Ambika Singh)
DJ-01/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 370/2022 Page No. 28/28
Ananta Kumar Swain vs. Tara Machines and Tech Services Pvt Ltd and Ors.