Delhi District Court
Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd vs Jaswant Singh Yadav on 29 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURTS)-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
CS (COMM) 519/2023
CNR No. DLST01-008702-2023
Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (DAMS)
Through its Authorized Representative,
Mr. Ayush Sharma
3 Green Park, New Delhi-110016
Mobile No. 8826014689
Email: [email protected] ..... Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Jaswant Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Toshendra Kumar
R/o 70A/1, Ground Floor, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi-110049
Mobile No. 9354297785
Email: [email protected]
Also at:
R/o Alkapuri Colony
Bansur Bypass Road
Alwar, Rajasthan-301402
Mobile 9354297795 ..... Defendant
Institution of the Suit : 12.09.2023
Arguments concluded on : 23.04.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 29.04.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 1 of 212. Brief facts:- As per plaintiff who is claiming itself to be a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956/2013 and the present suit was filed by Sh. Aayush Sharma, AR of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was stated to have officially appointed the Defendant as its Vice President of FMGE DAMS and had also entrusted him with important responsibilities. After the execution of the agreement, the defendant had induced the Plaintiff to pay him Rs. 32,00,000/-, on the pretext that he would work in association with DAMS in accordance of the terms of the agreement, but after execution of the agreement, he had turned his back on the agreement and had deliberately breached the terms of the agreement and had also stopped communicating with the plaintiff. It came as a bolt from the blue to the Plaintiff, when it came to know that defendant was associated with ALLEN COACHING, who happened to be a direct competitor of Plaintiff, even without legally terminating the agreement.
It was stated that despite being under the contractual obligation to work in the interest of the Plaintiff, defendant had failed to do so. It was asserted that at any given point of time, when the official website of DPGI was accessed, it had redirected the user to another coaching institute, namely M/s Medway, who was also the competitor of Plaintiff and this technical interference was effectuated by collusion with Medway without the consent and knowledge of the Plaintiff. The defendant in collusion with ALLEN COACHING and Medway CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 2 of 21 had breached and violated this non-compete clause by redirecting the website of plaintiff, thereby causing wrongful losses to it.
It was stated that Plaintiff had acquired DPGI, the coaching centre previously owned by the defendant as evident from Clause 1(A)(i)(1) of the agreement dated 10.01.2023, which was reproduced here as under:-
"The Second Party shall suspend its own coaching business under the name of 'DPGI' immediately upon the execution of the present agreement and shall not use the name 'DPGI' in future for any purpose and the second Party shall work exclusively for and on behalf of 'DAMS."
Defendant had not only breached the contract but had also deceived and defrauded the plaintiff as evident from the following clauses of the agreement, which were reproduced here as under:
As per clause 1(A)(i)(n):
"the Second Party shall not carry out any activity prejudicial to the interest of DAMS."
As per the Non-Compete clause 11:
"the Second Party shall not directly or indirectly carry on, assist, engage in, be concerned or participate in any business/activity of any company (whether directly or indirectly, as a partner, shareholder, principal, agent, director, affiliate, employee, consultant or in any other capacity or manner whatsoever) As per Clause 8(C)(ii)(a):
"DAMS shall be liable to claim from the second party or the Introducer, loss, damage, cost or expense including, without limitation, loss of profits, loss of data, loss of revenues, and loss of CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 3 of 21 Intellectual Property of DAMS, of any kind whatsoever and however caused, whether arising under contract, tort (including negligence or breach of statutory duty) or otherwise, even if DAMS has been advised of its possibility."
As per Clause 8(C)(ii)(b) "In the event the Second Party fails to comply with or breach the terms and conditions of the agreement, DAMS apart from terminating the agreement shall also be entitled to claim damages and compensation towards the loss of business in addition as aforementioned. Parties mutually agree that in the event of breach of agreement, fraud or any other violations on which account the present agreement is terminated by DAMS, the liquidated damages payable by second party to DAMS shall be Rs.50 lacs (Rs. Fifty Lacs or the last pay out whichever is higher."
It was stated that, owing to the aforementioned breach of agreement, it clearly came to light that defendant was no longer acting for and on behalf of of FMGE DAMS. Consequently, around 94 students, who were initially part of the FMGE program, had jumped the ship and had joined the ALLEN Coaching. Defendant was stated to have deliberately migrated these students to ALLEN Coaching, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiff.
3. The cause of action was stated to have arisen firstly when the said agreement was executed between the parties and had again arisen when Plaintiff had encountered significant difficulties in reaching the Defendant and had again arisen when Plaintiff had come to know that Defendant was associated with ALLEN COACHING. Cause of action had arisen further on CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 4 of 21 17.07.2023, when Plaintiff had issued a legal notice and had again arisen on 27.07.2023, when defendant had vaguely replied the legal notice of the Plaintiff. The cause of action was stated to be still continuing against the defendant.
4. Since the Defendant's registered office was situated under the PS Hauz Khas, which had fallen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and since the defendant had worked for gain from the said office, hence this court was stated to have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present lis.
5. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff had prayed for passing of a decree in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendant detailed as hereunder:-
(a) A decree of permanent/mandatory injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his assignees, legal heirs, servants, agents, etc., thereby directing to Cease and desist from unauthorized association with Allen Coaching and Medway with immediate effect and also from refraining the defendant from any activities that involved misrepresentation or misleading actions that might damage the commercial interests of the plaintiff or engage in any conflicting activities that undermined the defendants obligations towards the plaintiff;
b) decree of mandatory/ permanent Injunction against the Defendant to terminate the usage of CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 5 of 21 the official website of DPGI and rectified the damages caused due to technical interference with the official website of DPGI in order to deviate/ route the online traffic to the defendants unauthorized partners Allen Coaching and Medway in order to allure/ entice/ induce prospective/ potential students/medical students and defendants his assignees, legal heirs, servants, agents etc., were directed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 10.01.2023 executed between the parties.
c) Direct the defendant to refrain from using the name of the Plaintiff for its own purpose in any manner whatsoever either through itself, directly or indirectly.
d) Direct the Defendant to immediately stop using any and all intellectual property of the Plaintiff mentioned/ conferred in favour of the Plaintiff under the present agreement that were in possession of the Defendant and also to hand over the same to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff further sought an order for the rendition of accounts, damages to the tune of Rs. 32,00,000/-, along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of agreement till its realization in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant, along with any other order deemed fit and proper by the court.
CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 6 of 216. Upon service of notice, the defendant had also appeared to contest the case of plaintiff on its merits and filed his written statement on record, wherein he had taken a preliminary objection that plaintiff was guilty of concealment of material facts as well as for not approaching the court with clean hands. No cause of action was stated to have ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
7. On merits, it was stated that in 2019, Defendant had launched the FMG (Foreign Medical Graduate) course, in his coaching center DPGI. Plaintiff was stated to have taken over not only the DGPI but had also the FMG course. At the time of execution of the Agreement, as a part of Agreement, approx. 250 students, who were studying in Defendant's DPGI coaching center were moved to Plaintiff's coaching center in January 2023. Till June 2023, through the Defendant's efforts, approx 150 students were enrolled in the Plaintiff's center and approx 400 students were enrolled later on.
It was stated that defendant had not worked even for 6 months because he was trying at his end to somehow work out the unpleasant, unexpected, below par settings and working conditions in Plaintiff Company. It was also stated that the defendant was given the post of vice-president just for the name sake without giving him any decision making authority and hence, defendant felt himself to be helpless and was thus constrained to come out of that unhealthy environment. Apart from this, except for the paras which were either specifically CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 7 of 21 admitted or essentially or purely constituted a matter of record, rest others were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
8. To this written statement of the defendant, plaintiff had also filed its replication, wherein the preliminary objections taken by the defendant were denied by it and the contents of plaint were reiterated on merits.
9. On the pleadings of the parties, this court vide order dated 15.02.2024, had framed following issues for determination:
(i) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction of the nature as prayed, if so, against whom? OPP.
(ii)Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction of the nature as prayed, if so, against whom ? OPP.
(iii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to any damages, if so, to what extent? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
10. In order to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities, plaintiff had examined Sh. Aayush Sharma, S/o Sh. Brij Gopal, aged about 49 yrs, R/o F-14/15-B Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51, working as Legal Manager with the Plaintiff company, having his office at 3, Green Park, New Delhi-05, who had placed on record, his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/A1 in his examination-in-chief, wherein he had reiterated the contents of CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 8 of 21 plaint on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the following documents:-
1) Ex. PW1/1 - Copy of Authority letter dated 15.02.2023 issued by Sh. Rajwant Kaur (Country Head DAMS) in favour of the PW1.
2) Ex. PW1/2 -Copy of board resolution issued in favour of Sh. Rajwant Kaur.
3) Ex. PW1/3 - Copy of agreement dated 31.12.2022 executed between the parties.
4) Ex.PW1/4- Copy of the ledger of plaintiff along with the bank statements with respect to the payments made to the defendant.
5) Ex. PW1/5 - Screenshot of the defendant's advertisement reflecting association with ALLEN Coaching.
6) Ex. PW1/6 - List of fresh enrolled students of the FMGE DAMS Program.
7) Ex. PW1/7- Copy of legal notice dated
17.07.2023.
8) Ex. PW1/8- Copy of reply notice dated
20.07.2023.
9) Ex. PW1/9- Copy of Board Resolution
dated 07.11.2022.
During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant, PW1 had stated that amount of which recovery had been sought was duly reflected in their ledger account and the same was paid as advance professional fee to the CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 9 of 21 defendant and defendant was supposed to carry out its publicity by marketing and bring students for Plaintiff. No consideration amount was stated to have been paid to the defendant towards compliance of Clause 4 of Ex. PW1/3. He had admitted that one session was conducted at Philippines by defendant on behalf of Plaintiff for which expenses were borne by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He had denied the suggestion that Rs. 19,00,000/- was paid to defendant towards purchase of his business by the Plaintiff or that defendant had brought 250 students for coaching at Plaintiff's institute.
PW1 had stated that 94 students whose names were mentioned in Ex. PW1/6, themselves had told him that they were leaving Plaintiff's institute and joining Allens at the behest of defendant, who had already joined the said institute by that time. However, he had denied the suggestion that at the instance of defendant, 150 students had joined the plaintiff's institute and had deposed further that due to the defendant's false commitments built on sand, Plaintiff had suffered huge loss in business.
He had denied the suggestion that defendant had never asked for any advance professional fee from the Plaintiff. Other formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
11. Thereafter Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 10 of 2112. In rebuttal defendant namely Dr. Jaswant Singh Yadav himself had appeared in the witness box and had filed in evidence, his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A reiterating the contents of written statement on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record document Ex. D1, which was the true copy of Screenshot of DAMS' coaching board/online downloaded from the official website on 30.10.2023. (Exhibition of document Ex. D1 was objected to by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff as to its mode of proof).
During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 10.03.2025, DW1 had stated that he was MBBS and was not having any other specialization. On the date of his deposition, he was not working with any organization, however, a suggestion contrary to it was denied by him that he was working with Allen coaching center. At the time of shifting to Plaintiff's institute, he had handed over the data entry of his students to the Plaintiff. He had admitted that the said data was his property, however, a suggestion contrary to it was denied by him that he had not supplied any data to the Plaintiff and that was the reason he had not placed on record anything pertaining to same. He had not maintained any data regarding 150 students, who were enrolled with his efforts and guidance. He had denied the suggestion that no students were enrolled due to his efforts and guidance. He had verbally conveyed his displeasure regarding unpleasant working conditions to Dr. Sumer Sethi and Dr. Deepti Bahal, however, nothing was given in writing. No inputs were ever taken by plaintiff from him regarding syllabus, planning etc. in respect of the course for which he was hired and CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 11 of 21 this created an unpleasant atmosphere for him. He had denied the suggestion that his opinions were duly taken by the Directors of the company. He had also denied the suggestion that in terms of the agreement, the sole discretion lied with the company whether to implement such opinions or not. He had never terminated the agreement executed between the parties. He had denied the suggestion that Allen coaching was a competitor of the Plaintiff company or that Allen coaching was not only carrying out medical graduate entrance examination but also its PG examination as well. He had denied the suggestion that he had used the coaching materials of the Plaintiff without its consent and knowledge while working with Allen coaching or that he had violated the confidentiality and intellectual property terms of the said agreement Ex. PW1/3.
Smt. Santoshi Devi was stated to be his mother and she had some transaction with the Plaintiff. However, he had volunteered that it was done at his behest. He had denied the suggestion that Plaintiff had credited Rs. 14.5 lakhs (Rs. 4.5 on 15.02.2023 and Rs. 10 lakhs on 17.02.2023) in her mother's account, however, he had volunteered that it was only Rs. 9 lakhs. Other formal suggestions were also denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
13. Thereafter DE was also closed.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Chetan Roy, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and Sh. Divyanshu Kumar CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 12 of 21 Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for defendant through VC, at length and have gone through the record of both the parties.
While arguing, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff had stated that defendant himself had admitted the receipt of Rs. 32 lakhs from the Plaintiff as is also reflected from the contents of para 13 to 16 of his affidavit Ex. DW1/A, wherein he had stated that the payment of Rs. 19 lakhs, out of the total Rs. 32 lakhs, had nothing to do with the defendant's continued working/rendering of professional services at Plaintiff's coaching center and said amount was a consideration paid by the Plaintiff to the defendant for sale/transfer of study material/notes/contents and other devices/machines owned by the defendant and the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was spent by him in conducting training sessions for the Plaintiff abroad i.e. Philippines in the month of February and March 2023. A sum of Rs. 9 lakhs was stated to have been paid to him by the Plaintiff as per clause 4 of the agreement dated 10.01.2023 and thus formed part of lawful dues to be paid to him by the plaintiff for suspending the brand of DPGI.
Furthermore, my attention was drawn on clause 5 of the agreement, which provided that the agreement had to remain valid and in force for a period of two years commencing from 10.01.2023 till 09.01.2025 and as per clause 6 (v) of the agreement, which is reproduced here as under:
"The Parties acknowledge and agree that the breach by the second party or the Introducer of the provisions of this section may result in irreparable harm to the DAMS and that the DAMS will have the right to enforce the provisions of this section CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 13 of 21 by injunction, specific performance and/or equitable relief without prejudice to any other rights and remedies that the DAMS may have. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent either party making any disclosure of Confidential Information required by law."
Not only this, but also, reliance was placed on the liability and indemnity clause, which is reproduced here as under:
LIABILITY & INDEMNITY
(a) DAMS shall be liable to claim from the second party or the Introducer, loss, damage, cost or expense including, without limitation, loss of profits, loss of data, loss of revenues, and loss of Intellectual Property of DAMS, of any kind whatsoever and however caused, whether arising under contract, tort (including negligence or breach of statutory duty) or otherwise, even if DAMS has been advised of its possibility.
(b) In the event the Second Party fails to comply with or breach the terms and conditions of the agreement, DAMS apart from terminating the agreement shall also be entitled to claim damages and compensation towards the loss of business in addition as aforementioned. Parties mutually agree that in the event of breach of agreement, fraud or any other violations on which account the present agreement is terminated by DAMS, the liquidated damages payable by second party to DAMS shall be Rs.50 lacs (Rs. Fifty Lacs) or the last pay out whichever is higher...."
Reliance was also placed on clause 11 of the said agreement, which is reproduced here as under:
CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 14 of 21"NON-COMPETE The Second Party shall not directly or indirectly carry on, assist, engage in, be concerned or participate in any business/activity of any company (whether directly or indirectly, as a partner, shareholder, principal, agent, director, affiliate, employee, consultant or in any other capacity or manner whatsoever) which is similar to the work of DAMS especially in coaching of PG Medical & Dental, Nursing entrance examination nor engage in any activity that conflicts with the second party's obligations towards DAMS or directly competes with the activities of DAMS during the period of the contract. The DAMS will be the absolute owner of any Intellectual Property shared by the Second Party or the Introducer, till perpetuity."
And thus it was submitted that in the light of document Ex. PW1/5, it became further clear that the defendant had collaborated with ALLENS as is also reflected from the photographs of the screen shot reflecting the same address, where the Plaintiff had to run its business activities. Therefore, the defendant was liable to make good the losses suffered by the Plaintiff and though the damages clause provided payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs, however, plaintiff was restricting its claim only to the tune of Rs. 32 lakhs, which was the amount actually paid by it to the defendant.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the defendant has argued that it is the Plaintiff who is now trying to take undue advantage of its own wrongs by not providing a healthy and congenial environment to the defendant to work and also by shying away from its liability to make payments to the defendant CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 15 of 21 as per clause 4 of the agreement Ex. PW1/13 executed between the parties.
4. Payment & Taxes Terms:
I. Consideration Payable to Second party:
DAMS will give non-competing fee of Rs. 5 Lacs (subject to applicable TDS and GST deduction/provision) quarterly. The said fee is being paid by DAMS to the Second party in lieu of the Second Party suspending its own coaching business and for working exclusively for and on behalf of DAMS.
• 1st payment of 5 lakhs after execution of the present agreement.
• 2nd payment of 5 lakhs after 1 month from the date of execution of the preset agreement. • After 6 months from the date of execution of the present agreement onwards, the payment of 5 Lakhs will be made quarterly.
• DAMS will review the business achieved by the Second party at the end of every year, thereafter the DAMS will at its sole discretion, decide whether to continue this agreement/business with the Second Party and Introducer, for next year.
• In the event DAMS decides to continue this Agreement /business for the next year, DAMS will make quarterly payment of Rs. 5 lacs onwards as non-competing fee to the Second Party.
• In the event of termination of the present agreement, DAMS will not be liable to pay further non-competing fee to the Second Party....."
Hence, he has submitted that the alleged damages suffered by the Plaintiff is nothing but an exaggeration of its own thought and dreams as Plaintiff has not been able to prove any actual and substantial losses or damages.CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 16 of 21
15. In the light of aforesaid rival arguments and submissions of the parties as well as evidence appearing on record, my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction of the nature as prayed, if so, against whom? OPP.
Issue no. 2 Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction of the nature as prayed, if so, against whom ? OPP.
The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff, however, no evidence was lead on these issues. In view of the statement of the defendant recorded u/o X CPC on 11.01.2024, wherein, the defendant had categorically stated that he had no intention either to use the name of the Plaintiff or any of its intellectual property for his personal gains or benefits neither he had used the same in past after leaving the Plaintiff's organization for any personal or professional gain either for himself or for any of his near and dear ones. Therefore, these two reliefs had become infructuous, in view of the statement so made by the Defendant before the court on solemn affirmation and consequentially no material evidence was also led on these issues by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, these issues are decided as infructuous for the purpose of adjudication.
Issue no. 3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to any damages, if so, to what extent? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue was also upon the plaintiff. Though the Plaintiff had claimed that after the defendant left its CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 17 of 21 organization, 94 students brought by him had also left the Plaintiff's organization telling them that they were doing so at the behest of defendant. However, except for furnishing the names of those students, who were stated to have allegedly left the Plaintiff's coaching at the instance of defendant placed on record, no evidence in respect of actual losses suffered by the Plaintiff due to any of the alleged actions or omissions of the defendant was proved by leading cogent evidence in this regard.
So far as the payments allegedly made by the Plaintiff to the defendant are concerned, even the Plaintiff's witness himself had admitted during his cross-examination that the Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the defendant for conducting a session in Philippines. Thus it could not be said that the said money was either utilized by or spent upon the defendant for his personal use.
So far as the list Ex. PW1/6 is concerned, which was allegedly containing the names of those students, who had left the Plaintiff's coaching, none of the same was either called in evidence or examined by the Plaintiff to substantiate its allegation.
So far as document Ex. PW1/5 allegedly the photograph of the screen shot is concerned, same is not accompanied by any certificate u/s 65 of IEA, hence, same could not be considered as duly proved on record and same is the fate of document Ex.D1 produced by the DW1, during his CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 18 of 21 examination-in-chief, which is also not accompanied with any such certificate.
So far as the payments made by Plaintiff to defendant are concerned, it is pertinent to observe here that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was required to be paid by Plaintiff to defendant as non-competing fee and apart from the same, Rs. 5 lakhs were to be paid immediately after execution of the agreement with further additional payment of Rs. 5 lakhs after one month from the date of execution of the said agreement and after expiry of six months of the date of execution, those payments of Rs. 5 lakhs were required to be made quarterly by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
Although the agreement did not provide in clear terms that any consideration was paid or to be paid by plaintiff to the Defendant towards purchase of its intellectual property rights in the forms of notes, study material etc., however, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that the transfer of intellectual property does not happen without any consideration.
As observed above, out of the total payment made, Rs. 15 lakhs were received by the defendant as his legitimate dues and Rs. 4 lakhs towards his expenses incurred on conducting overseas session.
So far as remaining amount of Rs. 14 lakhs is concerned, same was never transferred by the Plaintiff in the account of Defendant rather the same were transferred in the CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 19 of 21 account of mother of the defendant and it had not been disclosed anywhere as to for what purpose the said transfer was made, hence, the defendant could not be held personally liable for any transaction made by the Plaintiff with his mother.
Further as observed earlier, the defendant was required to prove actual and substantial damages in order to reclaim the same from the defendant, however, Plaintiff has miserably failed to do so and apart from doing a mere lip service, he had not produced an iota of evidence on record to prove the actual losses.
In the landmark judgment of "Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority", reported in (2015) 4 SCC 136, the Supreme Court of India elucidated the application of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, concerning the necessity of proving actual loss or damage to claim compensation. The Court observed that:
"Since Section 74 awards reasonable compensation for damage or loss caused by a breach of contract, damage or loss caused is a sine qua non for the applicability of the Section.
Furthermore, the Court clarified: "The expression 'whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby' means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded."
CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 20 of 21The issue is accordingly answered in negative and decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
Relief.
16. In view of my findings given to issues above, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary legal formalities in this regard.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
DATED: 29.04.2025 Digitally signed
LOKESH by LOKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.29
17:32:57 +0530
(Lokesh Kumar Sharma)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
South/Saket/New Delhi
CS (COMM) 519/23 Delhi Academy Of Medical Science Pvt Ltd Vs. Jaswant Singh Yadav Page 21 of 21