Delhi High Court
Ranbir Kumar Gugneja vs M/S Continental Engines Ltd & Ors. on 24 December, 2010
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench: V.K. Jain
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 22.12.2010
Judgment Pronounced on: 24.12.2010
+ CS(OS) No. 24/2005
RANBIR KUMAR GUGNEJA .....Plaintiff
- versus -
M/S CONTINENTAL ENGINES LTD & ORS. .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Jasbir Singh
For the Defendant: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl and Mr. Eklavya Bahl
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in Digest?
V.K. JAIN, J
1. This is a suit for recovery of `63,65,103/-. The
plaintiff was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of
defendants No. 1 to 4 vide appointment letter dated
September 1, 2000, followed by a supplementary letter
dated September 29, 2000. As per the terms and conditions
of his appointment, the plaintiff was entitled for a
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 1 of 24
compensation of `2.50Lacs per month in addition to 10%
profit of each of the four companies as also the benefits of
contribution to provident fund, accommodation,
transportation, medical expenses, entertainment expenses,
leave benefits, etc. The plaintiff continued in the
employment of defendants No.1 to 4 w.e.f. 30th September
2000 till 31st March 2002.
2. It is alleged that after numerous requests from the
plaintiff, requesting the defendants to clear his outstanding
dues, the defendants sent an e-mail letter dated 4th October
2003 to him attaching therewith a statement of account,
giving the amount which according to the defendants was
payable to the plaintiff. Vide that statement of account,
defendants agreed to pay a sum of `27,79,739/- towards
overdue payment of salary, special allowances, contribution
towards provident fund and reimbursement of expenses as
also towards severance compensation consisting of salary,
special allowance and contribution towards provident fund.
Since there was no mention of entitlement of the plaintiff to
10% profit, in the plaintiff's statement of account, he never
accepted that he was entitled to only to a sum of
`27,79,839/-. The plaintiff received a sum of `22,65,154/-
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 2 of 24
from the defendants, leaving a balance amount of
`5,14,585/- in terms of the settlement of account sent to
him by the defendants.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 M/s
Continental Engines Ltd. made a profit of `2,11,31,856/-
whereas defendant No.2 M/s L.P. Castings Pvt. Ltd. made
profit of `4,86,563/- and, therefore, he is entitled to 10% of
the above profits amounting to `21,61,842/- for his service
tenure and a sum of `8,47,438/- towards profit of six
months for the severance period (calculated proportionate to
six months of profit of the year 2001-02). The plaintiff has
also claimed a sum of `2,62,000/- from the defendants
towards his salary, special allowance and contribution to
provident fund for the month of March 2002. Thus, besides
three principal sums viz. (i) `5,14,585/- being the unpaid
amount in terms of the statement of account sent by
defendants to the plaintiff (ii) `2,62,000/- towards salary,
contribution to provident fund and supplementary
allowance for the month of March 2002 and (iii)
`30,09,280/- towards profit, the plaintiff has also claimed a
sum of `25,79,238/- towards interest calculated at the rate
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 3 of 24
of 18% per annum, as on 31st October 2004, thereby
making a total sum of `63,65,103/-.
4. The defendants have contested the suit. They have
taken preliminary objections that the suit is bad for
misjoinder of defendant No.5 Sh. Amarjit Singh Bakshi and
that the suit is barred by limitation. On merits,
appointment of the plaintiff vide appointment letter dated
September 1, 2000 and issue of supplementary letter dated
September 29, 2000 has been admitted. As regards profits
of defendants No.1 to 4, it is stated in the written statement
that defendant No.1 M/s Continental Engines Ltd made
profit of `84.72Lacs and `55.27Lacs, respectively in the
years 2000-01 and 2001-02 whereas defendant No.2 M/s
L.P. Castings Pvt. Ltd. made profit of `1.71Lac and
`9.60Lacs, respectively during these two years. It is also
alleged that defendant No.3 M/s Continental Brakes Ltd.
incurred net loss of `18.75Lacs and `37.95Lacs during the
years 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively, whereas
defendant No.4 M/s Bakshi Steels Ltd. made net loss of
`76.08Lacs and `132.89Lacs during this period. It is also
alleged in the written statement that profit, if any, was to be
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 4 of 24
paid to the plaintiff after considering the profit and loss of
all the four companies and since all of these companies did
not make any profit, no amount towards profit became
payable to the plaintiff. It is also alleged that since the
defendants were always ready and willing to pay the
legitimate due of the plaintiff despite his performance not
being up to the mark, they agreed to pay a sum of
`27,79,739/- in full and final settlement. The defendants
made a payment of `22,65,154/- to the plaintiff as per his
instructions and the balance amount of `5,14,585/- was
offered to him with a request to furnish a receipt for full and
final settlement, so as to keep the record straight. However,
the plaintiff, after receiving the aforesaid sum of
`22,65,154/-, became dishonest and sent a notice based on
false facts and claims.
5. The following issues were framed on the pleadings
of the parties:-
(i) Whether defendant No.5 is not a
necessary or proper party and if so
whether the suit is bad for misjoinder
of parties? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by
limitation? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 5 of 24
decree for a sum of `63,65,103/-? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
claim future and pendente lite interest,
if so at what rate? OPP
(v) Whether the suit discloses no cause of
action? OPD
(vi) Whether the defendants are liable to
pay to the plaintiff only admitted sum
of `5,24,585/-? OPD
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 10%
profit of each of the four companies as
per supplementary letter dated 29th
September 2000? OPP
(viii) Whether the plaintiff was responsible
for the performance of all the four
companies, if so to what effect? OPD
(ix) Relief.
6. Issue No.1
It is an admitted case of the parties that the
plaintiff was appointed by defendants No. 1 to 4 which are
four companies. Defendant No.5, who was a Director of
these companies is not personally liable to make any
payment to the plaintiff and there was no privity of contract
between him and the plaintiff. Defendant No.5 is, therefore,
neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. His
name is, therefore, struck of the array of defendants.
The issue is decided accordingly.
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 6 of 24
7. Issue No.2
In terms of the letter dated September 29, 2000,
the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the profit of
defendants No. 1 to 4. Share of the plaintiff in the profits of
defendants No. 1 to 4 was to be paid quarterly on a
provisional basis and adjusted at the end of the year i.e. in
the last quarter of the financial year. Referring to this letter,
it was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants
that the profit for the year 2000-01 became payable to the
plaintiff on 31st March 2001 and, therefore, having been file
don 30th November 2004, the suit, to the extent it pertains
to the claim of the plaintiff in the share of profits for the
year 2000-01, is barred by limitation. The learned counsel
for the plaintiff on the other hand contended that till the
balance sheet of the companies were prepared, the amount
of the profit of the company in a particular financial year
cannot be ascertained and consequently the exact amount
payable to the plaintiff towards his share in the profit could
not have been worked out before the balance sheets for the
year 2000-01 were actually prepared. However, on perusing
the balance sheets, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
conceded that the balance sheet of defendant No.2 for the
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 7 of 24
year 2000-01 having been prepared on 1st September 2001
and the balance sheet of defendant No.1 M/s Continental
Engines Ltd. having been prepared on 6th June 2001 as is
evident from the balance sheet Ex.DW1/2(colly) and
Ex.DW1/1(colly), the suit, to the extent it pertains to share
of the plaintiff in the profits of defendant companies for the
year 2000-01, has been filed after expiry of three years from
the preparation of balance sheets.
8. The case of the plaintiff is that the principal
amount claimed by him including share in the profits of
defendant companies formed part of his wages. Article 7 of
the Limitation Act provides that the suit for wages in case of
any person other than a seaman will be 3 years from the
date when the wages accrued/due. The amount claimed by
the plaintiff, though under different sub-heads, formed part
of his wages and, therefore, constituted one single debt. It
cannot be said that the share in the profits, to be paid to the
plaintiff, constituted a debt distinct from and independent of
other payments required to be made to him, as part of his
pay package. Computed from the date on which the balance
sheets of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the year 2000-01 were
signed by the Auditors of these companies, the suit, to the
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 8 of 24
extent it pertains to share of the plaintiff in the profits of
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the period from 1 st April, 2000 to
31st March, 2001would be barred by limitation. However,
payments have, thereafter, been made by the defendants to
the plaintiff from time to time and those payments
admittedly were made in writing and within the period of
limitation prescribed for a suit for wages. As provided in
Section 19 of the Limitation Act, payment on account of a
debt made before the expiry of the prescribed period of
limitation by the person liable to pay the debt or by his
agent duly authorized in this behalf extends a fresh period
of limitation from the time a payment is made. When
confronted with this, the learned counsel for the defendants
did not press this issue further during the course of the
argument.
The issue is decided accordingly.
9. Issue No.8
Being the CEO of these companies, the plaintiff
was expected to give his best to his employers and make all
possible efforts to increase their profit and improve their
performance. Obviously, the quantum of the profit payable
to the plaintiff out of the profits of defendant companies
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 9 of 24
would increase or decrease, as the case may be, depending
upon the financial performance of the companies. But, a
perusal of the appointment letter Exh. PW1/2 and the
supplementary letter dated 29th September, 2000 would
show that payment of wages including share in the profits of
the companies was not linked to the performance of the
plaintiff. None of the amounts payable to the plaintiff
including share in the profit of defendant companies was
dependant on his individual performance qua the employer
companies. In terms of the appointment letters, he was to
be paid salary of `1,00,000/- per month, special allowance
of `1,50,000/- per month besides contribution to provident
fund, residential accommodation, transportation, leave
travel expenses, medical expenses, travel expenses etc. the
payment of 10% share in the profits of the employer
companies was linked to the profits of these companies and
not to the quality of the performance of the plaintiff. The
defendant companies, if they were not satisfied with the
performance of the plaintiff as their CEO, could have
dispensed with his services, but, having not done that, they
cannot deny his share in profit of the companies to him on
the ground that his performance was not up to the mark.
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 10 of 24
Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to examine
whether the plaintiff was responsible for the performance of
his employer companies.
The issue is decided accordingly.
10. Issue Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7
The relevant portion of the supplementary letter
dated 29th September 2000 (Ex.PW-1/3) issued by the
defendant companies to the plaintiff provided that the
plaintiff would be paid 10% of the profits of each of the
companies in which he was appointed as the Chief
Executive Officer.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff
was that his share in the profits was to be worked out
individually with respect to each company and that if two
companies out of the four who had employed him made
profits whereas the remaining two incurred losses, the
losses suffered by the loss making companies were not to be
set off against the profits made by the profit making
companies, for the purpose of computing the profit payable
to the plaintiff. In this regard, he emphasized on use of the
words 'profits of each companies' in the letter dated 29 th
September, 2000. On the other hand, the contention of the
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 11 of 24
learned counsel for the defendants was that since the
plaintiff was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of all the
four companies by a common appointment letter and the
wages agreed to be paid to him were a composite wages,
payable by all the four companies, without any bifurcation
as to how much would be paid to him by M/s Continental
Engines Ltd., how much by M/s L.P. Castings Pvt. Ltd., how
much by M/s Continental Brakes Ltd. and how much by
M/s Bakshi Steels Ltd, the intention of the parties was to
pay to him 10% of the profits, if any, made by the profit
making companies after setting off the losses incurred by
the loss making companies. It was also pointed out by the
learned counsel for the defendants that though the letter
dated 29th September, 2000 provided that the share of profit
will be paid to the plaintiff quarterly on provisional basis
and adjusted at the end of the year i.e. in the last quarter of
the financial year, the plaintiff despite being CEO of the
defendant companies, did not draw any amount towards his
share in the profits of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, either on
quarterly basis or at the end of the financial year, which
clearly indicates that he was to be paid out of cumulative
profit, if any, of all the four companies and that is why no
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 12 of 24
amount was drawn by him towards his share in the profits
made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 despite there being a
stipulation for payment of profit to him on a quarterly basis.
12. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the defendants have artificially depressed the
profits made by defendant No.1 and inflated the losses
incurred by defendant Bakshi Steels Ltd, in order to deprive
him of his share in the profits. It was pointed out that while
computing the cumulative profit/loss of defendant No.1,
M/s Continental Engines Ltd, for the year 2001-02, though
the net profit comes to `16,247,736/-, a sum of
`10,000,000/- paid towards dividend, `10,20,000/- paid
towards tax and surcharge on dividend as well as the
amount provided for payment of income tax were deducted
so as to reflect a net profit of `5,527,986/- though, in fact,
the net profit comes to `16,247,736/-. I have no doubt that
in my mind that in order to work out the share of the
plaintiff in the profits of the defendant companies, the
amount of dividend, tax on dividend or income tax could not
have been deducted. The profit made by the company
exclusive of dividend, tax on dividend and income tax etc. is
the amount representing the net profit made by the
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 13 of 24
company in a particular financial year. The dividend can be
paid only out of net profit of the company and income tax
also is payable on net profit. Therefore, the profit of
defendant No.1 for the year 2001-02 would be
`16,247,736/- and not `5527986/-.
It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for
the plaintiff that as would be evident from the report of
Auditors, Chordiya and Company of Bakshi Steels Ltd., the
liability towards employees, pertaining to the previous year,
has been taken into consideration while working out the
profit and loss of by `67.84Lacs. Had the liability of the
previous year not been taken into account during the
financial year 2001-02, the profits of the company would
have been higher by that amount or the losses would have
been lowered by that amount, as the case may be of M/s
Bakshi Steel Ltd for the financial year 2001-02.
13. I, however, feel that I need not go into the question
as to whether the plaintiff was to be paid only if profits were
made by defendant companies on a cumulative basis i.e. by
setting off the loss incurred by loss making companies
against the profits made by the profit making companies or
he was to be paid 10% of the profits earned by the profit
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 14 of 24
making companies irrespective of the losses incurred by loss
making companies, since the evidence on record shows that
the plaintiff had agreed to accept the amount of
`27,79,739/- from the defendants in full and final
settlement of all his dues.
14. Vide letter dated 14th April, 2003 (Ex.PW-1/DA),
the plaintiff wrote to Mr Alok Dutta of Continental Engines
Ltd., referring to his request for settling his accounts and
summarizing the areas of agreement as also the areas of
difference between him and Mr Alok Dutta. The areas of
difference pointed out in this letter were (1) severance
(terminal) amount (a) related to house rental of `4.5lacs, (b)
transport (personal) and other benefits of `1.3lacs and (c)
supplementary allowance for six months; (2) profit share,
and (3) interest on overdue payments. He also requested Mr
Alok Dutta to refer the differences to Shri A.S. Bakshi for
final decision. Similar letter was written by him to Shri A.S.
Bakshi on 07th May, 2003, which is Ex.PW-1/DB. In both
the letters, he pointed out that according to Mr Alok Dutta,
there was no profit generated during the period October,
2000 to March, 2003. Vide e-mail dated 27th May, 2003, Mr
Amarjit Bakshi informed the plaintiff that he had viewed
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 15 of 24
each area with great details. As regards profits, he stated
that since no profit had accrued (accumulative) of the four
companies, no share in the profits was payable to him. As
regards interest, he stated that since the delay in settling it
was not on account of Bakshi Enterprises, this was not
payable. He also requested him to conclude the matter by
confirming the settlement proposed in his e-mail and
informed the plaintiff that immediately on receiving his
confirmation, they would arrange to release the payment as
mutually agreed. The communication from Mr Bakshi was
acknowledged by the plaintiff vide his e-mail dated 04th
June, 2003 to Mr Alok Datta.
15. Vide e-mail dated 09th September, 2003, Mr Alok
Dutta sent to the plaintiff, final calculations of the amount
payable to him and also stated that on receipt of a letter
from him accepting that final settlement, they would initiate
the payment in line with their discussion. Vide e-mail dated
30th September, 2003 sent to Mr Dutta, the plaintiff sought
revised settlement in line with his discussion with Mr Dutta.
Vide e-mail dated 31st March, 2004, sent to the plaintiff, Mr
Alok Dutta sent corrected statement to the plaintiff. The e-
mail shows that the amount of supplementary allowance
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 16 of 24
was amended and Mr Dutta thanked him for pointing out
the error. It is quite clear from a perusal of the above-
referred correspondence between the parties that the
plaintiff sought intervention of Mr Amarjit Bakshi for a
decision on the areas of difference which remained
unresolved between him and Mr Alok Dutta, Mr Amarjit
Bakshi informed the plaintiff that he was not entitled to any
share in the profits since the defendant companies did not
make any profit on cumulative basis and no interest was
payable to him. A careful analysis of the e-mails dated 30th
September, 2003 and 04th October, 2003 would show that
the only mistake pointed out by the plaintiff in the final
calculations sent to him by Mr Alok Dutta on 09 th
September, 2003 was with respect to supplementary
allowance and that mistake was corrected in the revised
Statement of Accounts to the plaintiff on 04th October, 2003.
It is quite apparent from the consideration of these e-mails
that the plaintiff did not insist on claiming a share in the
profits of the defendant companies while responding to the
final calculations sent to him by Mr Alok Dutta on 09 th
September, 2003. Also, the plaintiff did not insist on
payment of salary for the month of March, 2002, while
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 17 of 24
responding to the final calculations sent to him by Mr Alok
Dutta. It is an admitted case that the plaintiff started
receiving payments from the defendant companies after
receipt of final calculations from Mr Alok Dutta vide e-mail
dated 09th September, 2003. In his cross-examination, the
plaintiff has admitted having received payments from the
defendants after 09th September, 2003. He has also
admitted that after 09th September, 2003, he did not write
any letter to the defendants demanding either salary for
March, 2002 or a share in the profits of defendants 1 and 2.
If the final calculations sent to him by Mr Alok Dutta on 09 th
September, 2003 were not acceptable to the plaintiff in full
and final settlement of his claim, he should either not have
accepted any payment from the defendant companies
thereafter or he should have at least accepted payments
under protest or reserved his right to claim salary for
March, 2002 and share in the profits of defendants No.1
and 2. The conduct of the plaintiff in pointing out no
mistake other than with respect to supplementary allowance
in the calculations sent to him by Mr Alok Dutta on 09th
September, 2003, coupled with his acceptance of part
payments from the defendants, from time to time, without
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 18 of 24
any protest and without reserving any right to claim salary
for March, 2002 and a share in the profits of defendants
No.1 and 2 clearly shows that he had agreed to accept the
amount of `27,79,739/- from the defendants in full and
final settlement of all his claims. The plaintiff, therefore, is
now estopped from raising any further claim against the
defendant companies with respect to his wages, including a
share in the profits of defendants No.1 and 2. He, therefore,
is entitled only to the admitted amount of `5,24,585/- from
defendants 1 to 4.
16. It was contented by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that payments from the defendants after 09 th
September, 2003 were accepted under duress and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had agreed to
receive the amount of Rs 27,79,739/- in full and final
settlement of all his dues. In support of his contention, he
has referred to the decision in National Insurance Co.
Ltd.Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (12) Scale 654. I,
however, find absolutely no merit in this contention. No
duress or coercion on the part of the defendants has been
pleaded by the plaintiff. In the plaint, there is no allegation
constituting any duress or coercion on the part of the
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 19 of 24
defendants. Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC provides that that in all
cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or
undue influence and any of other cases in which particulars
may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the
aforesaid forms, particulars shall be stated in the pleadings.
In Ranganayakamma and another Vs. K.S.
Prakash (dead) by LRs. and others; (2008) 15 Supreme
Court Cases 673, the Supreme Court referring to the
provisions contained in Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC held that
when a fraud is alleged, the particulars thereof are required
to be pleaded. It was observed that when a contract is said
to be voidable by reason of any coercion, misrepresentation
or fraud, the particulars thereof are required to be pleaded.
In Ramesh B. Desai Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta;
(2006) 5 SCC 638, Supreme Court observed that Order VI
Rule 4 of CPC requires that complete particulars of fraud
shall be stated in the pleadings. A similar view was taken in
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad;
(2005) 11 SCC 314.
When duress is alleged, the allegation like fraud or
misrepresentation must be supported by particulars. It is
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 20 of 24
only after complete particulars of the alleged duress are
given that the Court can inquire into it and decide whether
it stands proved or not.
In the case of National Insurance Company
(supra), Supreme Court gave some illustration as to when
the claims of a contractor are arbitrable and when they are
not, when discharge of contract by accord and
+98satisfaction are disputed. One of the illustrations given
by the Supreme Court reads as under:
(iii) A contractor executes the
work and claims payment of say
Rupees Ten Lakhs as due in
terms of the contract. The
employer admits the claim only
for Rupees six lakhs and informs
the contractor either in writing or
orally that unless the contractor
gives a discharge voucher in the
prescribed format acknowledging
receipt of Rupees Six Lakhs in full
and final satisfaction of the
contract, payment of the admitted
amount will not be released. The
contractor who is hard pressed
for funds and keen to get the
admitted amount released, signs
on the dotted line either in a
printed form or otherwise, stating
that the amount is received in full
and final settlement. In such a
case, the discharge is under
economic duress on account of
coercion employed by the
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 21 of 24
employer. Obviously, the
discharge voucher cannot be
considered to be voluntary or as
having resulted in discharge of
the contract by accord and
satisfaction. It will not be a bar to
arbitration.
(iv) An insured makes a claim for
loss suffered. The claim is neither
admitted nor rejected. But the
insured is informed during
discussions that unless the
claimant gives a full and final
voucher for a specified amount
(far lesser than the amount
claimed by the insured), the
entire claim will be rejected. Being
in financial difficulties, the
claimant agrees to the demand
and issues an undated discharge
voucher in full and final
settlement. Only a few days
thereafter, the admitted amount
mentioned in the voucher is paid.
The accord and satisfaction in
such a case is not voluntary but
under duress, compulsion and
coercion. The coercion is subtle,
but very much real. The `accord'
is not by free consent. The
arbitration agreement can thus be
invoked to refer the disputes to
arbitration.
However, in the case before this Court, there is no
averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was hard pressed
for funds or was under economic duress and, therefore, was
compelled to accept payments from the defendants despite
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 22 of 24
the fact that they were offering the sum of Rs 27,79,739/-in
full and final settlement of all his claims. The plaintiff was
not a junior employee of the defendant companies and was
their Chief Executive Officer who was to be paid a
handsome salary running into lacs of rupees per month
even in the year 2000. Hence, no case of economic duress or
coercion has otherwise been made out by the plaintiff.
The issues are decided accordingly.
17. Issue No. 4
Since the defendant companies were always ready
and willing to pay the balance amount of `5,14,585/- to the
plaintiff and were justified in insisting upon a receipt from
the plaintiff acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid sum in
full and final settlement of all his claims, the plaintiff who
delayed receipt of this balance amount by his own conduct
in insisting upon a share in the profits of defendants 1 and
2 and salary for the month of March, 2002 in addition to the
balance amount of `5,24,585/- is not entitled to any
interest. The issue is decided against the plaintiff.
18. Issue No.9
In view of my findings on the other issues, the
plaintiff is entitled only to recover a sum of `5,14,585/-.
CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 23 of 24
ORDER
A decree for recovery of `5,14,585/- is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 to
4. If the payment of the aforesaid amount of `5,14,585/- is not made or tendered by defendants 1 to 4 to the plaintiff within one week from today, the plaintiff will also be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these will be no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE DECEMBER 24, 2010 Ag/VK/BG CS(OS)No. 24/2005 Page 24 of 24