Delhi District Court
Mr. Amit Kumar Rai vs M/S Alok Sinhal And Co on 28 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ-831/21
Sh. Amit Kumar Rai
RZ-26P/144/3, Street No.9,
Indra Park Extension-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.M/s Alok Sinhal and Co., 73, National Park, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.
2. Sh. Alok Kumar Agarwal, 73, National Park, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.
...Defendants
Date of Institution : 09.11.2021
Date of Reserving judgment : 18.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.11.2025
Judgment:
1 The plaintiff has filed the suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.6,68,500/- along with pendente-lite and future interest. The suit was converted to an ordinary suit vide order dated 16.12.2021.
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:09:33 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 1 OF 26 Plaintiff's case
2 It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant no.1 is Char- tered Accountancy firm and the defendant no.2 is a Char- tered Accountant by profession and the founder and Man- aging Partner of the defendant no.1. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 issued Appointment Letter dated 07.06.2018 to plaintiff with a gross CTC of Rs.18 lacs per annum with an additional fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs w.e.f. 2020-21. Further, the plaintiff was appointed as Vice Pres- ident, International Taxation from the date of his appoint- ment.
3 It is further submitted that the principal place of business of defendant no.1 is at 73, National Park, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024. It is further submitted that although the appointment of the plaintiff was with the defendant no.1, the plaintiff was also regularly engaged in the ser- vices of the ASC Consulting Private Limited being the sis- ter concern of the defendant no.1 and where the defendant no.2 is the founder and the Managing Director. During his tenure with the defendant no.1, the plaintiff rendered his wide range of services to the defendant no.1 including but not limited to expatriate taxation, issuing legal opinions on taxation, etc. 4 It is further submitted that defendant no.1 circulated email dated 01.05.2020 through its human resource department to all its employees including plaintiff stating that for the month of April 2020, there would be mandatory salary de-
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.11.29 17:09:40 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 2 OF 26 ductions of upto 20% of gross monthly salary for all em- ployees on the pretext that due to COVID-19, there may be decreased cash flow and work engagements. It was further stated in the said email that in the alternative to the manda- tory 20% deduction, the plaintiff can volunteer to have 30% of his salary component withheld instead of the said deduction till the pandemic situation improved in the coun- try. Thereafter, defendant no.1 circulated another email dated 05.06.2020 stating that the said deduction and with- holding structure was to continue for salaries pending for the month of May 2020 as well. It is further submitted that the said deduction and withholding policy being arbitrary and unreasonable was not agreed to by the plaintiff, upon which the defendant no.1 unilaterally deducted 20% from the salary of plaintiff for the months of April and May, 2020. Defendant no.1 had finalized the changes to their human resource policies in response to COVID and circu- lated the same through email dated 28.05.2020. It is fur- ther submitted that Saturdays was made a full working day, however, a category of employees were made to take one day forced unpaid leave apart from Sundays.
5 It is further submitted that on 30.05.2020, another email was sent wherein the plaintiff was placed in the fourth cat- egory of employees who were required to work 5 days a week, with one day of forced unpaid leave for a day which was originally working from him and his cut in gross salary was determined to be 13% and such measures were effective from 01.06.2020 and were to continue till De- Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2025.11.29 17:09:49 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 3 OF 26 cember 2020.
6 It is further submitted that on 09.01.2021, the plaintiff ap- prised the defendants vide email that he was tendering his resignation and his last working day would be 31.03.2021, after completion of the notice period. The plaintiff re- quested defendants to clear his outstanding dues being sum total of salary component withheld for the months of April to August, 2020 and for March 2021 along with fixed bonus for the financial year 2020-21. It is further submit- ted that the total amount due and payable by defendant no.1 is as follows :
SL. MONTH AMOUNT IN RS.
NO.
1 Salary - April 2020 30,000
2 Salary - May 2020 30,000
3 Salary - June 2020 19,500
4 Salary - July 2020 19,500
5 Salary - August 2020 19,500
6 Salary - March 2021 1,50,000
7 Fixed Bonus - FY 2020-2021 4,00,000
Total 6,68,500
7 It is further submitted that on receiving intimation of plain- tiff's resignation, the defendant asked the plaintiff to sign Memorandum of Understanding to non-solicit and not compete with the defendants or any of its sister concerns and in case the MOU is not executed, the defendants shall not release the plaintiff's withheld salary component. It is further submitted that on several occasions through tele-
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29
17:09:59
+0530
CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 4 OF 26
phonic conversations and instant messaging, the defen- dants threatened the plaintiff of non-payment of his dues, lest he signs the MOU of non-solicit, non-compete with the defendants.
8 It is further submitted that plaintiff gave a demand in writ-
ing to the defendants for payment of outstanding dues which was served upon the defendants through email dated 02.07.2021 and speed post on 05.07.2021. Further, the de- fendants replied to the said notice on 22.07.2021 wherein they categorically admitted that they had infact withheld 50% of the plaintiff's salary on account their purported in- ternal COVID-19 policies. In addition, they have further admitted that the said 50% of the salary was further with- held on account of plaintiff allegedly demurring from cer- tain purported exit formalities of the defendant no.1. It is further submitted that thereafter plaintiff contacted the de- fendants to resolve the matter vide letter dated 26.07.2021 but the same was ignored by defendants. Hence, the present suit.
9 Vide order dated 16.12.2021, the present suit filed under Order XXXXVII CPC was converted into ordinary suit. Thereafter, summons were issued to defendants and they appeared and filed their Written Statement. Written Statement:
10 In the Written Statement, defendants have denied the contents of the suit being false, baseless and misconceived. It is denied that any amount much less an amount of Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.11.29 17:10:07 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 5 OF 26 Rs.6,68,500/- is pending to be paid to the plaintiff.
11 It is stated that the defendants' firm was established by one Sh. K.K. Aggarwal in 1995. It is further stated that the plaintiff vide email dated 29.04.2018 applied for senior position in international taxation in the defendant no.1 firm. Thereafter, the plaintiff again applied for the same position vide email dated 09.05.2018. Thereafter, based upon the representative, the plaintiff was short-listed for interview for the said position and was appointed vide Ap- pointment Letter dated 30.06.2018 as Vice President, Inter- national Taxation. Being in senior position, plaintiff was given certain targets and key performance indicator to de- termine the performance and bonus of plaintiff at the end of the year.
12 It is further stated that services of the plaintiff were terminated as various work place harassment complaints were received against the plaintiff from more than four fe- male employees. The first incident occurred in January 2019. However, after some enquiries within the organiza- tion, it was found to be misunderstanding and the plaintiff was left alone by issuing a simple warning. After that no formal complaints were received and COVID struck in March 2019 when defendant no.1 decided that services of no employee would be terminated. However, in the months of November, 2020, December 2020 and January 2021, three more complaints of workplace harassment (also indicative of sexual harassments) from three female employees against plaintiff were received and the services Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE +0530 6 OF 26 2025.11.29 17:10:15 of the plaintiff were terminated.
13 The services of the plaintiff were also terminated due to continuous failure to meet the set targets. During his tenure of two years and ten months, plaintiff had not been able to achieve the set target even once. 14 In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the services of the plaintiff were terminated and he was informed about the same in a personal meeting between the firm's HR con- sultant and the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff sent email dated 09.01.2021 thereby serving upon the firm three months' notice of termination.
15 With regard to the plaintiff's concern regarding or-
ganization policy changes due to Covid -19, it is stated that the after country-wide lockdown was imposed, certain pol- icy changes were made in the company. Vide email dated 31.03.2020 whereby 50% of the salary of the entire senior members of the staff was kept on hold. Vide email dated 01.05.2020, the 'on hold' salaries of all the employees were decided to be released and a standard deduction of 20% in the salary of all the employees and personnel was made. Thereafter, vide email dated 28.05.2020, five groups were determined based upon amount of work and the plaintiff was kept in a group whereby he was required to work five days a week and one day was forced unpaid leave subject to 13% deduction per month from salary. It is further stated that the plaintiff never objected to the same and being senior manager of defendant no.1 firm was Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:10:23 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 7 OF 26 part of the decision making team.
16 It is further submitted that the plaintiff did not com-
plete the exit formalities post termination. It is further sub- mitted that the Memorandum of Understanding/Exit Agreement was shared with the plaintiff and the plaintiff refused to sign the same. It is further stated that the said agreement is neither in contravention of Section 27 or Sec- tion 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 17 It is further submitted that thereafter a meeting was held between the parties on 17.06.2021 to record the terms of the agreement and the same was sent by the HR Man- ager of defendant no.1 to the plaintiff vide email dated 17.06.2021. However, the plaintiff replied to the said email taking completely contrary stand. 18 Thereafter, Legal Notice dated 02.07.2021 was sent by plaintiff demanding the pending amount of Rs.10,86,167/-. The same was replied to by the defendants on 26.07.2021 thereby denying the claim of the plaintiff. 19 Defendants have denied the averments of the plain-
tiff regarding the meeting having fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs. They have also denied that the office of defendant no.1 is in Lajpat Nagar which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. Objection as to the jurisdiction of the court has been taken as the plaintiff was required work in the Noida office only.
20 It is denied that the defendants at any time claimed salary which was deducted and had infact accepted the Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA 2025.11.29 Date:
17:10:31 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 8 OF 26 same, being member of the senior management which de- cided to deduct the salary of all the employees including the plaintiff himself.
21 In view of these submissions, it is submitted that the plaintiff's suit is completely baseless and no amount is due from the defendants towards the plaintiff. Replication:
22 In his replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the con-
tents of his plaints and denied all the factual averments made in the written statement.
Issues:
23 Vide order dated 22.07.2022, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
23.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recov-
ery of money, as prayed for in Prayer Clause (a)? OPP 23.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of interest, as prayed for in Prayer Clause (b)? OPP 23.3 Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
23.4 Relief.
24 Thereafter, the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evi-
dence.
25 In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.PW1/A and has proved the following documents :
SL. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
No.
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL
BHATIA
CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO.BHATIA Date:
PAGE 9 OF 26
2025.11.29
17:10:39 +0530
1 Appointment Letter dated 07.06.2018. Ex.PW1/1 2 Email dated 01.05.2020 sent by defendant Ex.PW1/2 no.1.
3 Email dated 05.06.2020 sent by defendant Ex.PW1/3 no.1.
4 Email dated 28.05.2020 sent by defendant Ex.PW1/4 no.1.
5 Email dated 30.05.2020 sent by defendant Ex.PW1/5 no.1.
6 Email dated 09.01.2021 sent by plaintiff. Ex.PW1/6 7 Pay slips from January to March 2020, April Ex.PW1/7 to February 2021.8 Form 26AS. Ex.PW1/8
9 Email dated 22.03.2021 sent by plaintiff. Ex.PW1/9 10 Email dated 10.05.2021 sent by plaintiff. Ex.PW1/10 11 Email dated 17.05.2021 sent by plaintiff. Ex.PW1/11 12 Email dated 17.06.2021 sent by plaintiff. Ex.PW1/12 13 Email dated 17.06.2021 sent by defendant Ex.PW1/13 no.1.
14 Memorandum of Understanding circulated Mark X by defendant no.2.
15 Legal Notice dated 02.07.2021. Ex.PW1/15 16 Reply dated 22.07.2021 to the Legal Notice. Ex.PW1/16 17 Legal Notice dated 26.07.2021 Ex.PW1/17 18 Reply dated 30.07.2021 to the Legal Notice. Ex.PW1/18 19 Printout of extracts/contents of defendant's Ex.PW1/19 website taken on 19.02.2022 at 3.53 pm. 20 Email exchange between 07.01.2019 and Ex.PW1/20 06.02.2019 (colly) between plaintiff and (ccolly) defendant.
21 Legal Notices dated 27.03.2019, 17.06.2019 Ex.PW1/21 and 14.10.2019 sent by Ms. Sakshi Bhatia to (colly) the counsel.
22 Email dated 06.04.2019 along with detailed Ex.PW1/22
reply sent by plaintiff. (colly)
23 Findings of the internal committee. Ex.PW1/23
24 Email exchange dated 18.12.2020 Ex.PW1/24
Digitally signed
by RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29
17:10:49 +0530
CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 10 OF 26
25 Whatsapp communication between plaintiff Ex.PW1/25
and defendant no.2 from 08.04.2021 to 16.06.2021.
26 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Ex.PW1/26 Evidence Act.
26 During his cross-examination by Sh. Yogesh Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for defendant, he admitted the fac-
tum of initial fixed bonus of Rs.1.75 lacs granted to him for the financial year 2018-19 but the same is not men- tioned in the plaint and appointment letter, Ex.PW1/1. He deposed that the initial fixed bonus was increased to Rs.4 lacs with effect from the financial year 2019-20 and the same is reflected in the email dated 28.07.2020, Ex.PW1/ D1 and the same was part of his total fixed salary. 27 During his further cross-examination conducted on 27.07.2023 by Sh. Yogesh Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for defen- dant, he denied that the quantum of his annual bonus was on the basis of his achieving financial break even for the said financial year. He admitted that he has not filed any document/ his statement of account to show that he had been receiving a fixed annual bonus from the defendants during his employment with them. He deposed that he was interviewed at NOIDA branch and was initial posted at NOIDA branch for two - three months and thereafter he was deputed at Delhi branch due to long travel issues. He denied that he was never deputed in Delhi office. He de- posed that he worked with the defendants from 07.06.2018 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:10:59 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 11 OF 26 till 31.03.2021. He admitted that besides him, three more identical cases have been filed by other employees of de- fendants group company against them and out of the three cases, two cases have been filed by his relatives.
28 During his further cross-examination conducted on 17.10.2023 by Sh. Yogesh Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for defen- dant, he admitted that the pay slips, Ex.PW1/7 (Colly) is- sued to him depict the location of Noida. He deposed that he has not filed any document on record asking the defen- dants to correct the place of employment from Noida to Delhi. He deposed that he was neither the HR nor the Re- porting Manager of defendants.
29 During his further cross-examination conducted on 23.11.2023 by Sh. Yogesh Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for defen- dants, he admitted that he has not placed any document on record supporting his averments made in paras 9, 10 & 11 of his affidavit in evidence. He further admitted that part of his salary held by defendants has already been paid to him, however, some of the deductions made due to COVID-19 reason were not yet paid. He further admitted that there was deduction of 20% from his salary and also that as per the email of the defendants, deductions were to be introduced from the salary of all the employees. He de- nied that being Vice President with defendants, he was part of decision making. He admitted that as per the Appoint- ment Letter, he was required to give three months' notice for resignation. He admitted that his notice period of three months was not complete as it was mutually agreed with Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2025.11.29 17:11:08 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 12 OF 26 the defendant that his last working day would be 31.03.2021. He admitted that his Appointment Letter does not refer to any fixed annual bonus. He denied having ap- proached the defendants' customers to procure business for himself. He further denied that he was not performing as per the parameters of defendants. He has not placed any document on record to show that he has been formally re- lieved by the defendants. He denied having filed a false claim against defendants only to extort money. He denied that he was employed in Nodia for his entire employment period and has never worked at Delhi office. 30 Therefore, plaintiff closed his evidence and the mat-
ter was fixed for defendants' office.
31 In support of their case, the defendants has exam-
ined Ms. Sampada Sharma, Authorized Representative as DW1 who tendered her affidavit in evidence, Ex.DW1/1 and proved the following documents :
SL. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
NO.
1 Copy of Board Resolution/SPA in Ex.DW1/A
favour of defendant.
2 Copy of email dated 29.04.2018. Ex.DW1/B (OSR) 3 Copy of email dated 09.05.2018. Ex.DW1/C (OSR) 4 Copy of Letter of Appointment Already Ex.PW1/1 dated 07.06.2018.
5 Copy of email dated 07.01.2019. Ex.DW1/E 6 Copy of complaint. Mark X 7 Emails dated 31.03.2020, Ex.DW1/G (colly) 01.05.2020, 28.05.2020 and 05.06.2020.
8 Copy of email dated 28.07.2020 Ex.PW1/D1 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:11:17 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 13 OF 26
9 Document showing release of the Ex.DW1/I withheld salary to the plaintiff.
10 Certificate under Section 65B of Ex.DW1/H Indian Evidence Act.
32 In her cross-examination by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, she deposed that name of the defen- dant has changed to ASCBSR and company LLP. 33 Ms. Sampada Sharma, Authorized Representative of defendants tendered her additional affidavit in evidence, Ex.DW1/A2 and proved the following documents :
SL. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
NO.
1 Copy of Resolution dated Ex.DW1/A1
17.12.2024. (OSR)
2 Copy of Supplementary Mark DW1/A
Partnership Deed dated 21.07.2021
3 Copy of Certificate of Registration Ex.DW1/K
of conversion of ASCBSR and
company to ASCBSR and
company LLP dated 07.02.2022.
34 During her cross-examination by Sh. Manoj Kumar,
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, she deposed that she joined the ASC Consulting Private Limited on 17.07.2023. She ad- mitted that there is no written communication from the de- fendant company to plaintiff that plaintiff failed to meet the target of his team before 31.03.2021. She further ad- mitted that there was no document on record showing the acceptance of conditions by the plaintiff to the effect of achieving the target and also that the defendant company has written any communication to the plaintiff to complete Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:12:24 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 14 OF 26 any exit formalities before 31.03.2021. She further admit- ted that the defendant company has not placed any docu- ment showing that Japanese desk was under loss before 31.03.2021. She further admitted that defendant has not produced any record showing the termination of plaintiff from defendant company. She further admitted that ASC Group uses common employees for its different entities in the group. She could not tell whether the Mark X, MOU is the same MOU proposed by the defendant company to the plaintiff for his signatures.
35 Thereafter, defendants evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments. Arguments of the parties:
36 Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the present suit is based upon the unpaid salary for the month of March 2021 amounting to Rs.1.50 lacs along with fixed bonus of Rs. 4 lacs for the financial year 2020-21 and de-
ductions made for the period April to August, 2020 amounting to Rs.1,18,500/-.
37 It is submitted that the plaintiff was initially placed in the Noida office of defendant no.1 firm vide Appoint- ment Letter, Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, he was placed in the Lajpat Nagar office of defendant no.1 firm after three months of his employment due to travel distance. 38 It is further submitted that during the period April to August, 2020, the defendant no.1 deducted amount of Rs.1,18,500/- from the salary of plaintiff on the basis of Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:12:33 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 15 OF 26 emails Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5. It is further submitted that the plaintiff did not agree to the same and defendant no.2 has admitted that the plaintiff had certain issues with pol- icy for deduction from the salary.
39 Further, it is submitted that as per email dated 22.03.2021, Ex.PW1/D1, the plaintiff was to be paid fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs for the financial year 2020-21. It is fur- ther submitted that vide email, Ex.PW1/D1, it was also agreed that the deducted salary shall be repaid in case the plaintiff could achieve the financial break even for the fi- nancial year. Vide email, Ex.PW1/6 dated 09.01.2021, the plaintiff submitted his resignation serving three month's notice to defendant no.1 company and informing that his last day at work would be on 31.03.2021. It is further sub- mitted that the defendant no.1 did not pay salary for the month March 2021 nor paid the fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs or part of the salary deducted from April to August, 2020. 40 It is further submitted that after last day of the work, defendant no.1 shared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Mark X. The execution of Mark X was made as a condition precedent to release of outstanding payment. It is further submitted that vide whatsapp chats between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 through Ex.PW1/25, MOU was prepared but the plaintiff refused to sign the same as it was not only against the law but also not as per the ap- pointment letter of plaintiff. It is further submitted that the in the said whatsapp chats, the defendant no.2 agreed to pay the balance amount in phased manner. On these Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2025.11.29 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. 17:12:40 +0530 PAGE 16 OF 26 grounds, the plaintiff has sought that the present suit be de- creed.
41 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants has submit-
ted that the changes in the salary structures vide emails Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5 were sent to the whole staff mem- bers and the plaintiff never objected to the same without raising any issue regarding to the same. It is further sub- mitted that although initially, the plaintiff had raised cer- tain issues but plaintiff took no steps to claim the amount during the time of his employment and only at the time of resigning from the job vide resignation email Ex.PW1/6 has claimed or demanded the said amount. It is further submitted that the salary was first deducted in April 2020 and for the further period of almost one year, the plaintiff worked at lower salary without raising any objection thereby giving his deemed consent to the deductions in the salary. It is further submitted that the salary deductions were decided by the senior management of the defendant no.1 company and the plaintiff being part of the senior management was part of the decision making for deduction in salary. As such, it is submitted that no cause of action has been shown by plaintiff which entitles him to the pay- ment of salary deducted from April to August, 2020. 42 It is further submitted that the services of the plain-
tiff were terminated in January 2021 due to various work place harassment complaints received against the plaintiff and not achieving the target during the relevant period. It is further submitted that the same were informed to the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 17 OF 26 17:12:47 +0530 plaintiff and the plaintiff issued Legal Notice Ex.PW1/6 informing the company the service of notice period.
43 It is further submitted that there was no fixed bonus for which the plaintiff is entitled. It is further submitted that vide Ex.PW1/D1, specifically clause 4, payment of Rs.4 lacs was subject to the plaintiff achieving the set tar- get as the business head of plaintiff which the plaintiff did not achieve during the financial year 2020-21 and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs. On these grounds, the dismissal of the present suit is sought. Analysis and Reasoning:
44 In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed amount of Rs.6,68,500/- which can be broken down as follows:
44.1 Unpaid salary for the month of March 2021. 44.2 Amount of Rs.4 lacs claimed as fixed bonus for the financial year 2020-21 44.3 Amount of Rs.1,18,500/- on account of deductions made from the salary for the months of April to August, 2020.
45 The issue No.1 is with regard to recovery of the amount. However, the issue of territorial jurisdiction has been raised by defendants and has been framed as issue no.3. As such, the issue no.3 is being decided first.
Issue no.3:
"Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. OPD"
46 As per this issue, defendants have claimed that thisDigitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 18 OF 26 17:12:56 +0530 court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present matters.
47 Ld. counsel for defendants have argued that as per the appointment letter, the plaintiff was placed in the Noida office and served in the Noida office only and as such, this court does not have jurisdiction to try the present matter.
48 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that it is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff was placed in the Noida office and was asked to later serve in the Lajpat Nagar. As such, the plaintiff has worked in Lajpat Nagar office and this court has territorial jurisdiction. 49 It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff was ap-
pointed vide Appointment Letter, Ex.PW1/1. A perusal of Ex.PW1/1 would reveal that letter of appointment was is- sued from the Lajpat Nagar office of the defendant no.1. Initially, the place of posting was in the Noida office. However, it is submitted that thereafter, plaintiff was shifted to Lajpat Nagar office of defendant no.1 company. 50 The onus of issue no.1 was on the defendant. The defendant no.1 only supported the issue by initial posting at Noida office. No evidence as to the plaintiff continuing working in the Noida office has been placed on record. No attendance record or any evidence to show that plaintiff continued working at the Noida office has been placed on record by defendants. Further, letter of appointment was issued by defendant no.1 itself at the Lajpat Nagar office.
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.11.29 17:13:04 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 19 OF 26
51 As such, part of cause of action in the present suit being appointment letter being executed from the Lajpat Nagar and without any evidence to the contrary, it has to be held that part of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court and this court has jurisdiction to try the present suit.
52 As such, issue no.3 is decided against the defendants and it is held that this court has jurisdiction to try the present suit.
Issues no.1 & 2 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of money, as prayed for in Prayer Clause (a)? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of interest, as prayed for in Prayer Clause (b)? OPP "
53 In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed amount of Rs.6,68,500/- which can be broken down as follows :
53.1 One being unpaid salary for the month of March 2021 when the plaintiff resigned from the defendant no.1 company.
53.2 Second amount of Rs.4 lacs claimed as fixed bonus for the financial year 2020-21 53.3 Amount of Rs.1,18,500/- on account of deductions made from the salary for the months of April to August, 2020.
54 The issue no.1 is as to the entitlement of plaintiff to recovery of amount and issue no.2 is with respect to inter-
est on the suit amount. As such, both the issues are being Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA 17:13:12 Date: 2025.11.29 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 20 OF 26 decided together.
55 It is undisputed fact between the parties that plaintiff was earlier working with the defendant no.1 and rendered his services till 31.03.2021. Plaintiff has claimed that amount of salary for the month of March 2021 has not been paid to the plaintiff. This submission of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendants nor any evidence has been led by defendants to show that salary for the month of March 2021 was ever paid to plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff has not been paid salary for the month of March 2021 despite rendering his services to de- fendant no.1 till March 2021. Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs for the month of March 2021 which is in consonance with his appointment letter Ex.PW1/1. As no evidence has come to support that fact the said amount has been paid, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.1.50 lacs on the unpaid salary for the month of March 2021.
56 Coming to the aspect of fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs, plaintiff has claimed that the annual fixed bonus was part of the remuneration and has to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied upon his appointment letter, Ex.PW1/1 which shows that total gross salary was Rs.18 lacs. The appointment letter notes that detailed salary structure is at- tached as Annexure-I. However, plaintiff has not filed an- nexure-I to the letter of appointment. Further, plaintiff has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as unpaid salary for one month which comes to Rs.18 lacs per anumn. This shows that Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. 17:13:19 +0530 PAGE 21 OF 26 fixed bonus was not part of the annual salary as per the ap- pointment letter, Ex.PW1/1. No evidence has been led by plaintiff to show that an amount of Rs.4 lacs was agreed between the parties as fixed annual bonus for the financial year 2020-21.
57 During his cross-examination, the plaintiff was con-
fronted with email dated 28.07.2020, Ex.PW1/D1, plaintiff has claimed that he was promised the fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs but the said email wrongly connects the same to his performance.
58 As per clause 4 of email dated 28.07.2020, Ex.PW1/D1, it is stated that for the financial year 2020-21, additional annual bonus of Rs.4 lacs was to be paid subject to performance of the business vertical headed by the plaintiff for the said financial year. 59 Thus, email dated 28.07.2020, Ex.PW1/D1 connects the bonus of Rs.4 lacs to the performance of plaintiff and plaintiff has relied upon this email to state that amount of Rs.4 lacs was fixed bonus. However, on perusal of clause 4, it reveals that the said amount was subject to achieving business target.
60 As discussed herein above. Ex.PW1/1, the appoint-
ment letter gives gross salary of Rs.18 lacs. In case, the plaintiff wishes to rely upon this appointment letter, Ex.PW1/1, he can only claim annual salary of Rs.18 lacs, which has been claimed as Rs. 1.5 lacs for the month of March 2021. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW1/D1 to Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:13:26 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 22 OF 26 claim the annual fixed bonus. The said email specifically clause 4 states that the bonus was to be based upon the per- formance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not placed on record any evidence to show that the plaintiff achieved the financial target based on which the plaintiff is entitled to fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs.
61 Neither any evidence has been led by plaintiff re-
garding the fixed bonus nor the plaintiff has been able to show either by way of his own evidence or cross-examina- tion of defendant that his business target was achieved for the financial year 2020-21.
62 Thus, the claim of the plaintiff that fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs was payable is not based upon any of the docu- mentary evidence placed on record. In case, the plaintiff wishes to rely on Ex.PW1/D1, for claim of bonus of Rs.4 lacs, he had to show that break even for the financial year 2020-21 was achieved but no evidence has been led by plaintiff. Thus, the claim of plaintiff of fixed bonus of Rs.4 lacs is not supported by any evidence and cannot be granted to plaintiff.
63 The next component of the claim is the refund of de-
duction in the salary from April to August, 2020. These deductions were made vide email starting from 01.05.2020 to 05.06.2020, being Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5. The last of such emails were issued on 05.06.2020 and the plaintiff served the defendant no.1 company till 31.03.2021. The plaintiff kept on receiving his salary and performing the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:13:35 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 23 OF 26 job without claiming any refund of the deducted salary during his employment. Nothing has been placed on record by plaintiff that he ever made any objection to claim salary deducted. Although no extracts of the emails sent by defendant had been placed on record also. Further, the plaintiff after first deduction of salary in April 2020 kept on working with the defendant no.1till 31.03.2021 and did not raise issue apart from his resignation letter dated 09.01.2021.
64 Thus, what can be ascertained from the above facts is that plaintiff consented to the emails Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5 by his conduct by keeping on working with the defendant no.1 company without raising any formal issue or writing any letter to the defendant no.1 company show- ing that he did not consent to the deduction of salary and as such it has to be held that the plaintiff accepted the terms of defendant no.1 company with respect to deduc- tions of salary for the months of from April to August, 2020. Thus, the amount claimed for the deducted salary also cannot be granted to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not led any evidence to substantiate the said claim. 65 Ld. counsel for plaintiff during arguments has sub-
mitted that the defendants in their Written Statement have admitted that certain issues were raised by plaintiff with respect to the deductions, however, the alleged admission does not show as to when issues were raised or whether the issues were resolved or not.
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:13:43 +0530 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 24 OF 26
66 The onus to claim deducted salary was on the plain- tiff and it was for the plaintiff to prove by way of evidence that he did not agree to any deductions in his salary. No such evidence has been led by plaintiff and the purported admission relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is not enough for the consequence to be drawn that the defen- dants had agreed to pay the amount of deducted salary to the plaintiff and as such, this claim of the plaintiff is also not be accepted.
67 In view of the above discussion, issue no.1 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff and he is entitled to an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs from the defendants. The plaintiff is also entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from 31.03.2021 till the amount is paid.
68 As far as the individual liability of defendants is concerned, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that de- fendant no.1 is a partnership firm and defendant no.2 being its partner, is also liable to pay the amount due. Although the defendants have placed on record copy of Supplemen- tary Partnership Deed dated 21.07.2021 stating that defen- dant no.1 is limited liability partnership. However, defen- dants have not placed on record original of the same and as such, Supplementary Partnership Deed dated 21.07.2021, mark DW1/A is not proved in accordance with law. As such, both the defendants are liable to pay the amount awarded.
Relief:
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.11.29 17:13:54 CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 25 OF 26 +0530
69 In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is found entitled to an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs against both the defendants along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from 31.03.2021 till realization. Both the defendants are liable to pay the decreetal amount. The plaintiff is also found entitled to cost.
70 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 71 File be consigned to record room after due compli-
ance.
Digitally signed by RAHULRAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.11.29 17:14:00 +0530 Announced in the open (RAHUL BHATIA) Court on 28.11.2025 District Judge-01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ NO.831/21 AMIT KUMAR RAI VS. M/S ALOK SINHAL AND CO. PAGE 26 OF 26