Bangalore District Court
Mantu Kumar Tiwari vs M/S Urs Systems Pvt Ltd on 8 October, 2025
KABC010232142018
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY.
CCH 33
::PRESENT::
SMT. LATHA,
XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
O.S.No.6080/2018
Plaintiff : Sri. Mantu Kumar Tiwari,
S/o. Bhagwan Tiwari,
Age about 41 years,
R/at House No.13, 2nd Cross,
Reliable Tranquil Layout,
Haralur Road,
Bengaluru 560 102.
(Rep. by Sri BSC., Adv.)
V/S.
Defendant: 1. M/s. URS Systems Pvt Ltd.,
having its Regd., Office at
No.A 18/8, Anupam Enclave,
Phase 2, Shaidullajab,
Neb Sarai Road,
New Delhi 110030.
2
And Local Office At:-
43, 1st Floor, Pmr Tower,
Hosur Main Road,
Bertanagrahara, Electronic
City PO, Bengaluru. Rep., by
Its Directors
a) Usha Asthana &
b) Mayank Asthana
2. Mrs. Usha Asthana,
Direcotor,
M/s. URS Systems Pvt Ltd.,
No. A 18/8, H No. W17 To
W101f, Anupam Garden
Saidullajab, Delhi-110030.
3. Mr. Mayank Asthana,
Director,
M/s. URS Systems Pvt Ltd.,
No. 43, 1st Floor, PMR Towers,
Hosur Main Road,
Bertanagrahara, Electronic
City PO., Bengaluru-560100.
(Rep. By Sri RKS., Adv.)
Date of Institution of the
suit: 20.8.2018
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
pronote, suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for Money Suit
injunction, etc,) :
Date of the commencement 10.6.2022
of recording of the
CCH-33
3 OS.6080/2018
Evidence:
Date on which the 08.10.2025
Judgment was pronounced:
Total Duration : Year/S Month/S Day/S
07 01 10
(LATHA)
XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE : BANGALORE.
::JUDGMENT::
The plaintiff filed this suit for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.11,97,025/- along with interest at the rate of 18% pa., and also to direct the defendant to issue proper documents to him and costs.
2. According to the plaintiff, he is a graduate in Engineering from Jorhat Engineering College, Assam and he had been recruited by the defendant company on 17.5.2017 as Vice President, Sales. The company had also issued appointment letter to him. He worked with utmost 4 commitment and professionalism, During his work tenure, many a times, on his valid request the defendant company did not respond. He proposed multiple ideas for the betterment of the company, but the defendant did not respond, and the plaintiff was forced to do the work which was not within the purview the general job descriptions of an IT professional. On multiple occasions his salary and other payments were delayed. Therefore, he resigned from the defendant company on 20.1.2018 by issuing three months notice to the defendant through Email. But the defendant did not respond to his resignation letter and the defendant company called him to come for discussion on 24.1.2018 and he collected relieving letter on 9.3.2018. At that time the plaintiff had requested to credit his pending salary, reimbursements and also hand over relieving and experience letter. But the defendant did not handover the -
1. Relieving letter with corrected designation as per HRMS Data and Payslip.
2. Experience certificate.
CCH-33 5 OS.6080/2018
3. Payslips for September 2017, December 2017 and January 2018.
4. Corrected payslip for the month of October 2017.
5. Tax deducted at the Source (TDS) certificate and
6. PF Account details.
Further the plaintiff has also contended that the defendant did not clear the -
1. Salary for the month of September 2017 amounting to Rs.2,77,125/-,
2. Shortfall amount of December 2017 amounting to Rs.61,173/-,
3. Reimbursement amount spent towards official expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/-
4. Settlement amount for the period from 1.2.2018 to 21.4.2018 amounting to Rs.3,76,874/-
5. leave encashment amount of Rs.1,54,728/-,
6. Salary for the month of January 2018 amounting to Rs.2,77,125/- &
7. Provident fund amount.
6Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Rs.21,97,025/- from the defendant with interest at 18% pa., and also to hand over the documents listed herein above.
3. On the other hand, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement on 23.9.2022 by contending that the plaintiff has come before the Court with unclean hands and by suppressing the material facts. The defendants have also denied the averments made in the plaint which are traversed against their contentions. The defendants in the written statement have also admitted that the plaintiff joined the defendant company as Vice President, he was got appointed by considering his acquiescence with the director of the company and also by considering his request and financial need, that the plaintiff made averments in the plaint according to his convenience and to suit the requirements for filing this suit.
3b. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff was personally known to the defendants that when CCH-33 7 OS.6080/2018 defendant No.2 started his company, the plaintiff personally met and approached defendants for a job and told that he was going through a very rough phase in life, that he is in need of job, that by considering his pity situation the defendants agreed him to provide him a good position and he has been appointed as Vice president to Sales for an yearly remuneration of Rs.53,50,004/- that the plaintiff was very irregular at the office and failed to perform his part of work and failed to achieve the target given by the company which is a clear indication of non performance of his part of contract against the terms and conditions as agreed while joining the company as Vice President, Sales, that due to his laid back attitude, lack of promptness and pro- activeness the company's sales suffered, that the target has not been reached, that the company suffered loss under his leadership.
3c. The defendants further contended that the company had paid in the following manner to the plaintiff as mentioned herein below:-
8
I. 17th May - 17th Jun (1st Month): as per the policy the employee gets 100% and he was paid 100% II. 17th Jun - 17th July (2nd Month): as per the policy the employee gets 75% and he was paid 100% (Net 25% additional) III. 17th July - 17th August (3rd Month): as per the policy the employee gets 50% and he was paid 100% (Net 50% additional) IV. 17th Aug - 17th September (4th Month): as per the policy the employee gets 25% and he was paid 100% for remaining day of August and No payment for September (45% Additional, net 120% Additional) Hence, was paid more than for what he was eligible including September 2018 as per policy.
3d. The defendants further contended that in the month of November 2018 there was a meeting with the plaintiff and his salary internally revised to Rs.50,000/- pm, as the defendant company was no more ready to bear his financial burden, that the plaintiff further started to disturb the defendant company, therefore, the defendant No.3 paid from his personal account to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, however, the plaintiff in the due course of CCH-33 9 OS.6080/2018 time agreed to fulfill the formalities and sign the documents and signed the same in the last week of February 2018, that the defendant company handed over all the documents relating to relieving him that the plaintiff asked for change in the designation, that the defendant informed him that the designation cannot be changed, that the appointment letter of employment contend a clause which mandated strict adherence to the Human Resources Operation Manual which contain a secrecy cum non disclosure clauses governing the contract of employment, that the plaintiff signed and agreed a non disclosure and non solicitation document wherein the plaintiff had specifically undertaken that during his employment with defendants and two years thereafter, to refrain from disclosing confidential information being provided by defendants to plaintiff as he had unhindered excess to many trade secrets and plans, proposals, projection, system, procedure, data information and details of defendants which were highly confidential in nature.10
3e. It is further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff had quit the company without fulfilling the relieving formalities of the company like signing the required documents, handing over valuable belongings of the company, that when the defendants followed up him on each and every assignment he frustrated and he resigned the company on 20.1.2018 and left the company without completion of existing formalities, that it was breach of terms and conditions on the part of plaintiff, that the defendant company incurred loss of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on the irresponsibility of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants contended that since the suit of the plaintiff is frivolous the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the predecessor in office of this court had framed the following issues.
ISSUES framed on 15.12.2022
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he was offered CCH-33 11 OS.6080/2018 the job of vice President in the 1 st defendant Company and appointment letter dtd 17.5.2017 was issued?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that 1st defendant Company have got the signature of plaintiff on non disclosure agreement and non solicitation agreement on 31.1.2018 and by taking advantages of clauses stated in the said documents, they failed to issue relieving letter with corrected designation, experience certificate, pay slips, TDS certificate and PF account details ?
3. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff had quit the company without fulfilling the reliving formalities of the Company and is making unnecessary claims which has resulted in Revenue loss to the defendant to the tune of 1 Crore 50 lakh which the defendant is entitled to pay to the plaintiff Company ?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the claim of damages of Rs. 11,97,025/- with interest as claimed in the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants to issue the documents claimed in the plaint?
6. What order or decree?
5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 18 documents 12 as Exs.P.1 to P.18. On behalf of the defendants, they got the its Occupation Director examined as DW.1 and got 4 documents marked as Ex.D1 to D4.
6. Both counsel for the plaintiff and defendants filed written arguments and heard arguments of both counsel for plaintiff and defendants.
7. On careful perusal of the rival contentions, on going through the documentary evidence, the finding on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Negative Issue Nos.3: In the Negative Issue No.4: In the Negative Issue No.5: In the Negative Issue No.6: As per the final order, for the following:
::REASONS::
CCH-33 13 OS.6080/2018
8. Issue Nos.1 to 5: Since these five Issues are interlinked and require common discussion, they are taken up together for brevity and to avoid repetition of facts.
9. In the suit, the plaintiff sought for a direction to the defendants to pay to him a sum of Rs.11,97,025/- with interest at 18% per annum and also to issue the proper documents viz., Relieving letter with the corrected designation, experience certificate, payslips, TDS certificate and PF Account details.
10. It is an admitted fact that the defendant No.1 company is a software company, that the petitioner was offered for the job and an appointment letter was issued to him, that he reported to duty on 07.05.2017, that he resigned from the defendant company on 20.1.2018.
11. The plaintiff in the plaint has contended that he requested the defendants on 03.02.2018 asking for few changes in the non disclosure agreement, a non completion 14 and non solicitation agreement. It is also contended that the defendants gave him the relieving letter with some error in it, that after several requests to correct the error crept in the relieving letter, his name was corrected, but the designation was not corrected, that he suffered tremendous financial loss and undergone mental agony due to loss of job and unprofessional act of defendants.
12. In the written statement, the defendants specifically denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended that they have already issued relieving letter with the required documents. Further, the defendants specifically contended that there are no dues to the plaintiff.
13. The defendants have further contended that, the plaintiff had quit the company without fulfilling the relieving formalities of the company and is making unnecessary claims, which has resulted in revenue loss to the defendants to the tune of Rs.1.50 crores, which the plaintiff is liable to pay to the defendant company, that the plaintiff CCH-33 15 OS.6080/2018 has raised false claims and proceedings against the defendants only with an intention to cause disrepute to the defendants and grab money from them.
14. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate his contention, got himself examined as PW1. In the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and he has also got 18 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On the other hand, the defendant No.3 got himself examined as DW1 and also got 4 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4.
15. Ex.P1 is the appointment letter dated 17.05.2017. As seen from this letter, on the basis of the discussion held on 13.04.2017, the defendant's Organization appointed the plaintiff with the role of Vice President, Sales in Band EO operating at their locations in India and the total annual remuneration will be Rs.53,50,004/-. The plaintiff had to join the job on 17.05.2017 i.e. on Wednesday. Ex.P1 appointment letter is also containing Annexure-1 and 16 Annexure-2 about the terms and conditions of the defendants' company. Ex.P2 is the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 29.06.2018. Ex.P3 are the postal receipts, Ex.P4 is the copy of police complaint filed by plaintiff before Parappana Agrahara police station on 24.07.2018. Ex.P5 is the endorsement issued by the Parappana Agrahara Police Station. Ex.P6 is the certificate filed under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P7 to P11 are the Emails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants. Ex.P12 is the Non Compete and Non Solicitation Agreement, Ex.P13 is the Non disclosure Agreement, Ex.P14 is the relieving letter, Ex.P15 HRMS data, Ex.P16 pay slips, Ex.P17 Bank Statements and ExP18 is the reply notice.
16. The learned counsel for defendants cross examined the PW.1 extensively. In para-5 of the cross examination, PW.1 specifically admitted that he had resigned from company on 20.1.2018 for personal reasons.
CCH-33 17 OS.6080/2018 When the PW.1 has unequivocally admitted that he has resigned the company for his personal reasons then the Court has to examine the materials placed before it carefully to find out the truthfulness in the claim of the plaintiff. As seen from Ex.D1, the plaintiff issued a letter to the finance department of URS System pvt., Ltd., on 27.2.2018 stating that he confirmed that he agreed for his revised gross salary to INR 50,000/- pm., starting from 1.12.2017. Further, he confirmed under the said letter that he do not have any claim towards the salary for the month of September 2017 that he had received all his dues towards final settlement under salary, reimbursement, encashment, PF and gratuity. Further, he has also agreed that he shall pay Rs.1,10,982/- to company towards final settlement, due to notice period short fall and reimbursement recovery, that on his request the defendant company has waived off the said amount and he specifically confirmed that he has no further claim/demand towards reinstatement or re-employment and he has also 18 undertaken that he shall not raise any claim or demand whatsoever, against the company. Ex.P2 is the certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.D3 is the Email forwarded by the plaintiff to defendant company and as a reply to the said Email, the defendant company emailed a letter dated 10.1.2018.
17. From the plaint averments it could be gathered that the plaintiff has specifically contended that he is an ex- employee of defendant company, that he was offered for the post of Vice President-Sales in the defendants' company and an appointment letter was issued on 17.05.2017. The defendants have also not disputed the said fact and the defendants have categorically admitted that the plaintiff had joined the defendants' company on 17.05.2017. Since it is undisputed that the plaintiff joined the defendant company as an employee on 17.05.2017, no much discussion is required to answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
CCH-33 19 OS.6080/2018
18. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant No. 1 company has taken his signature on non disclosure agreement and non solicitation agreement on 31.01.2018 and by taking advantage of clauses stated in the said documents, they failed to issue a relieving letter with corrected designation, experience certificate, payslips, TDS certificate and PF account details. On the other hand, the defendants have specifically pleaded in the written statement that because of the abrupt quit of the plaintiff from the company without fulfilling the relieving formalities of the company, the defendant No.1 suffered financial loss of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendants to a tune of Rs.11,97,025/- with interest.
19. In this regard in evidence also the plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint. However, in the cross examination, the learned counsel for defendant could elicit from him in Para No.5 that he resigned from the 20 company on 20.1.2018 for personal reasons. When the plaintiff specifically admitted that he resigned from the company for his personal reasons and as the defendants have produced Ex.D1 letter of undertaking, it is for the plaintiff to establish that the defendants had taken his signature on it under coercion and duress and the said plea shall be proved against the defendants with positive evidence with specific pleadings. Here, though the plaintiff contended that Ex.D1 letter of undertaking is not signed by him during normal course, it is for him to establish the said fact with the cogent evidence. As could be seen from Ex.D1 the letter of undertaking letter which is an no due certificate signed on 27.2.2018. The said letter is reproduced herein for better understanding and convenience, same is as under:-
"I Mantu Kumar Tiwari (EMP ID:10402) confirms that, I have agreed for my revised gross salary to INR 50,000/month starting 1st Dec 2017. I confirms that, I do not have any claims towards Sep 2017 Salary. I have received all my dues towards final settlement under CCH-33 21 OS.6080/2018 Salary, Reimbursement, Encashment, PF and Gratuity. I further agrees that, I shall pay INR 110,982 to company towards final settlement, due to notice period shortfall and reimbursement recovery. On my request company has waived-off this amount. I confirms that I have no further claim/Demand towards for reinstatement or re- employment. I shall not raise any claim or demand, whatsoever against the company."
On plain reading of Ex.D1 letter as referred herein above, there is no ambiguity in the said letter of undertaking. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the said letter was signed by the plaintiff under coercion, pressure or undue influence and he had no free consent while signing the said letter. The admission of plaintiff during the course of cross examination that he resigned from the company for his personal reasons is taken into consideration along with Ex.D1 letter of undertaking, the prudent man also can come to the opinion that the Ex.D1 letter was signed by the plaintiff without any force and it is signed out of his free will.
22
20. No doubt, the parties to the suit have produced number of Emails which got exchanged between them and the defendants have also produced the attendance book which is at Ex.D4. Though the plaintiff denied the fact that he remained absent in the entire month of September 2017, as seen from Ex.D4 the attendance register, the plaintiff was absent in the entire month and he had not signed in the attendance book. Though he denied the said fact, the evidence of plaintiff clearly goes to show that he did not work in the company in the month of September 2017. In Ex.D1 letter also he specifically undertaken that he has no claim for the Salary for the month of September 2017. When the plaintiff has signed the document to show that he has no claim whatsoever, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim salary for the month of September 2017.
21. Further, the counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued and also in the written arguments submitted that the defendants made the plaintiff to sell Panipuri in their CCH-33 23 OS.6080/2018 company and treated the plaintiff in such a manner forgetting that he is well educated employee. Further, the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the defendant company deceived the plaintiff and made to suffer in employment. However, as seen from the cross examination of PW1, he specifically admitted that he had been appointed as Vice President Sales and relieved as Vice President Sales. When there is unequivocal admission by the plaintiff, then where is the question of issuing a relieving letter to the plaintiff with improper designation and DW.1 has also admitted that the plaintiff had joined the defendant company as Vice President Sales. When such being the case, there is no material to accept the contention taken by the plaintiff that the defendant company has issued reliving letter with wrong designation.
22. Further, it is also the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant company had obtained his signature on non disclosure agreement and non solicitation 24 agreement on 31.01.2018 and by taking advantage of clauses stated in the said documents they failed to issue relieving letter with corrected designation, experience certificate, pay slips, THS certificate and PF Account details. Contrary to his contention, the plaintiff himself admitted in his pleadings that he signed the non disclosure agreement as well as non solicitation agreement on 27.02.2018. As seen from Ex.P12 and P.13, the Non Solicitation Agreement and Non Disclosure Agreement. Those documents have been signed on 27.02.2018. When the plaintiff himself admitted that the defendants have taken his signature on non disclosure agreement as well as non solicitation agreement on 27.02.2018, his contention that the defendants have taken signature on those documents on 31.01.2018 is false and it is not substantiated by the plaintiff by placing acceptable material.
23. Further, on perusal of the documents, it is also clear that, as per Ex.D3, the defendant company had mailed CCH-33 25 OS.6080/2018 a letter to the plaintiff to fulfill the relieving formalities of the company. The plaintiff has also admitted that the defendant company's HR and Finance team were keeping on sending him emails mentioning that he has not completed the required formalities and same was pending and delayed by him. When the plaintiff himself admitted that the defendant company repeatedly sending emails to complete the formalities, then it is for him to comply and complete the formalities. When once an employee left the company, after settling the issues, when why the company keep on sending emails. It is only when the formalities were not completed by the employee then only, normally such emails will be sent to the employee. While admitting that emails were sent by the defendants to him, it appears he did not comply the formalities required by the company while he quitting the company.
24. When the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff itself disclose that there was fault on the part of plaintiff himself, 26 without completing the formalities of the company while getting himself relieved from the company, then where is the question of payment of damages to him. No doubt, the learned counsel for plaintiff pointed out the legal requirements to be completed by the defendant company at the time of relieving the plaintiff. However, the evidence of plaintiff itself goes against his contentions and therefore, it is the considered view of this court that since the plaintiff himself admitted that he has no dues towards the defendant, after coming out of the company he cannot claim any damages against the defendant without placing any material which are legally acceptable by the court. Further, the defendants contended that the company suffered loss of Rs.1,50,00,000/- because of the failure of plaintiff to complete the formalities, however, defendant No.3 did not place any material to show that because of the non completion of formalities by the plaintiff the company suffered loss to a tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- In view of the discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, it is the CCH-33 27 OS.6080/2018 considered view of this court that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and Issue Nos. 2 to 5 are answered in the Negative.
25. Issue No 6: In the result, it is to be held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of recovery of damages as well as mandatory injunction as sought for. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the following:-
::ORDER::
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 8th day of October 2025) (LATHA) XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.28
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Sri. Mantu Kumar Tiwari
(b) Defendant :
D.W.1 : Sri Mayank Asthana
2. List of documents Ex.ed for the:
(a) Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Appointment letter
Ex.P.2 : Legal notice
Ex.P.3 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.4 : Complaint
Ex.P.5 : Acknowledgment of police
Ex.P.6 : Certificate U/s.65B
Ex.P.7 : Welcome Letter
Ex.P8 : Resignation letter through Email
Ex.P9 to : Declaration towards usage and access of
Ex.P11 official laptop
Ex.P12 : Non Compete & non Solicitation Agreement
Ex.P13 : Non disclosure Agreement
Ex.P14 : Relieving letter
Ex.P15 : HRMS data
Ex.P16 : Pay slips
Ex.P17 : Bank statements
Ex.P18 : Reply notice
(b) Defendant:
Ex.D1 : Non due certificate
Ex.D2 : Certificate U/s.65B
Ex.D3 : Email communications
CCH-33
29 OS.6080/2018
Ex.D4 : Attendance Register
(LATHA)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE
BANGALORE.
CN/*