Delhi District Court
Creons Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Gurpreet Taneja on 28 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN MITTAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 03, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 8583/16
In the matter of :
CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ... Plaintiff
having registered office at:
D-119, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi-110024.
Also having corporate office at:
426, Udyog Vihar, Phase-III,
Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.
Vs.
Mr. Gurpreet Taneja ... Defendant
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o WZ-178, Plot No. 385-396,
Chand Nagar, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
Date of Institution : 16.07.2015
Date on which arguments concluded : 26.02.2024
Date of Judgment : 28.02.2024
Result : Dismissed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,84,355/-
ALONGWITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM SINCE 01.07.2015.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the captioned suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, praying therein for the relief of recovery of an amount of Rs.19,84,355/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 1 18% per annum since 01.07.2015.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
2. The material averments in the plaint can be summarized as under:
(a) Plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office and corporate office at the addresses as mentioned in the memo of parties and cause title. Plaintiff has filed this suit through Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, working as Manager (Accounts) with plaintiff company and who has been duly authorized, vide Board Resolution dated 06.11.2013, for the said purpose.
(b) Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of providing the services relating to designing, architectural work, interior decoration and other related services for furnishing/developing the projects, showrooms, outlets, exhibitions, events, etc. to its various customers including companies.
(c) Defendant joined the plaintiff company on the post of Project Manager, vide Offer-cum-Appointment letter dated 28.09.2011.
(d) Defendant was provided with laptop, various confidential designs and documents by the plaintiff company.
(e) Defendant was responsible to manage sub-contractors, contractors, vendor and other employees and to get the work/project of customers of plaintiff company completed in accordance with design and specifications.
(f) Plaintiff company used to transfer various funds to the defendant CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 2 for the purpose of making the expenses incurred in getting the work/ project completed through contractor/ sub- contractor/ vendor/ employees etc. The defendant was supposed to submit with the plaintiff company the proofs/accounts of expenses incurred/ payment made, viz. voucher/bill/receipt etc. The defendant, despite repeated demands from plaintiff company, did not submit the complete proofs/accounts of expenses incurred/payment made to contractor/sub-contractor/ vendor/ employees etc.
(g) Defendant stopped attending the office of plaintiff company since 06.01.2013.
(h) Plaintiff company has suffered losses due to non-completion of projects of its customers due to act/omission of defendant.
(i) Defendant has failed to return the laptop, confidential documents/designs and proofs/accounts of expenses incurred/ payment made to contractor/sub-contractor/ vendor/ employees etc. Plaintiff company, vide email dated 24.08.2013, required the defendant to return/submit the said property/document/accounts.
(j) Defendant with the motive to blackmail the plaintiff filed a case before the Labour Court, Gurgaon.
(k) As per the ledger/statement of account maintained by plaintiff company, an amount of Rs. 4,23,364/- is outstanding from defendant.
(l) Plaintiff company has suffered losses in terms of loss of goodwill, reputation and loss of work/business/profit due to defendant. Further, the customer of plaintiff company deducted the payments CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 3 from plaintiff company for delayed completion of work/project. The said loss is assessed at Rs. 13 Lakhs. Defendant is also liable to pay an amount equivalent to one month's salary as he left the employment without giving one month's notice. The claim amount is as follows:
(i) Amount advanced by plaintiff to defendant and Rs. 4,23,364.00 not accounted for by the defendant.
(ii) One month salary amount in lieu of notice Rs. 48,605.00 period
(iii) Interest @ 18% per annum on above amount Rs. 2,12,386.00 since 01.01.2003 till 30.06.2015
(iv) Damages caused to the plaintiff due to breach Rs. 13,00,000.00 of contract by defendant,work and loss of reputation/goodwill and cost of properties and documents Total Rs. 19,84,355.00
(m) Hence, the present suit, seeking the recovery of aforesaid amount of Rs. 19,84,355/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum since 01.07.2015 till realization.
DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE:
3. The allegations and averments upon which the defence of defendant is based can be summarized as under:
(a) It is not denied that defendant joined the employment of plaintiff company, vide Offer-cum-Appointment letter dated 28.09.2011, on the post of Project Manager.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 4
(b) It is not denied that defendant was responsible to manage the sub-
contractors/contractors/vendors and employees and get the work of customer completed in accordance with design and specifications.
(c) It is not denied that defendant was provided with a laptop by the plaintiff company. However, it is specifically denied that plaintiff company had provided any confidential designs and documents. The design and documents handed over to defendant were not confidential as the same used to be provided to various sub- contractors also and the same were also available on site. Defendant used to submit the designs and specifications to the officials of plaintiff company as and when the requirement thereof was over.
(d) Defendant was not in touch with any of the clients of plaintiff company. Defendant was required to perform his duty as per the instructions of his superiors. Defendant was not directly responsible for the completion of entire project.
(e) It is not denied that plaintiff company used to transfer funds to defendant towards meeting the expenses for getting the work completed. Many a times, defendant spent substantial amount, out of his own pocket. It is also not denied that defendant was required to submits the proofs/accounts of expenses incurred/ payment made to contractor/sub-contractor/ vendor/ employees etc. viz. bills, invoices, vouchers etc. Most of the expenses used to be incurred by the staff working under defendant and therefore, defendant used to transfer the funds received from plaintiff company to the said staff and also used to verify and forward the bills etc. submitted by the said staff to his superiors. Defendant had submitted to various CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 5 officials of plaintiff company the statement of account in an excel- sheet format in respect of all the projects wherein defendant's services were taken. Defendant had submitted the accounts of entire amount with supporting affidavit viz. voucher, receipt, bill etc. to Mr. Ashok and informed about the same to his immediate senior, as and when, the said supporting documents were received from junior staff.
(f) Plaintiff company has not cleared the outstanding amount of Rs.
69,557/- which as spent by defendant out of his own pocket at Ghatkopar site, the accounts of which were submitted and verified in the month of July, 2012.
(g) Plaintiff used to not be paid his salary and other amounts on time.
(h) It is denied that when plaintiff company asked for the proof/supporting documents in respect of all amounts, the defendant absented himself from the office since 06.01.2013 without any notice, or intimation. On 07.01.2013, the defendant had met with an accident and he informed about his inability to attend the office to the officials of plaintiff company. However, defendant was informed that his services had been terminated w.e.f. 06.01.2013 and he was asked to not to come to the office.
(i) When the defendant protested against his termination and demanded his outstanding salary, variables, notice pay and out of pocket expenses, he was required to submit resignation and contact the accounts department. In these circumstances, defendant submitted a resignation under duress.
(j) Plaintiff company refused to pay Rs. 58,326/- towards salary for CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 6 the period between 01.12.2012 to 06.01.2013, Rs. 42,000/- towards conveyance, Rs. 1,30,656/- towards variables and Rs. 68,000/- towards out of pocket expenses. The plaintiff company also refused to pay salary in lieu of termination without notice.
(k) In July, 2014, defendant approached the Labour Court, Gurgaon, as a counter-blast to which plaintiff company filed the present suit.
(l) Defendant contacted the plaintiff company several times for clearing his outstanding amount and for handing over the laptop.
(m) It is denied that an amount of Rs. 4,23,364/- is outstanding from defendant. Plaintiff has filed a forged and manipulated statement of account.
(n) It is denied that defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.
19,84,355/- alongwith interest as claimed.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLICATION:
4. Plaintiff filed a replication, wherein the allegations/ averments in the written statement were denied and submissions made in the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. The contents of the said replication are not being dealt with herein for the sake of brevity.
ISSUES:
5. Ld. Predecessor, on the basis of pleadings and documents filed on behalf of both parties framed following issues:
Issue no.1: Whether defendant during the course of his employment with plaintiff was provided laptop, various confidential designs and documents? OPP CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 7 Issue no.2: If answer to issue no.1 is in affirmative, whether defendant on being asked by plaintiff to return the aforesaid documents and property failed to do so? OPP Issue no.3: Whether defendant on being asked by plaintiff for proof/supporting documents in respect of money spent by him on behalf of plaintiff company failed to produce proof to plaintiff? OPP Issue no.4: Whether defendant absented himself from his duties in the office of plaintiff till 06.01.2013? OPP Issue no.5: Whether due to the absence of defendant in the office of plaintiff, plaintiff suffered losses of clients and of profits? OPP Issue no.6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 19,84,355/- from defendant? OPP Issue no.7: Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP Issue no.8: Relief?
6. This Court, for the purpose of getting the evidence recorded in an expeditious manner, appointed the local commissioner under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
7. Plaintiff company, in order to prove its case, examined its authorized representative, Arun Kumar Yadav as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit-in-evidence, Ex. PW1/A towards his examination-in-chief. PW- 1 tendered and admitted in evidence the following documents:
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 8
(i) Certified copy of resolution as Ex. PW-1/1.
(ii) True copies of certificates of incorporation of plaintiff company as Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/4.
(iii) The appointment letter as Ex.PW-1/5.
(iv) Copies of various emails exchanged between the officials of plaintiff and the defendant as Ex. PW-1/6 (colly.).
(v) True copy of email dated 24.08.2013 sent by the plaintiff company to the defendant as Ex. PW-1/7.
(vi) Copy of letter dated 24.08.2013 as Ex. PW-1/8.
(vii) A copy of notice received by the plaintiff from the Labour Court Ex. PW-1/9.
(viii) A copy of complaint/claim as Ex. PW-1/10.
(ix) A copy of the ledger account as Ex. PW-1/11 (8 pages).
(x) Copies of balance-sheets of plaintiff for the financial years 2011-
12, 2012-13, 2013-14 as Ex. PW-1/12 to Ex. PW-1/14.
(xi) A certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW-1/15.
Plaintiff's witness, PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant on 19.09.2018, 01.11.2018, 20.11.2018 and 20.05.2019. During cross-examination, PW-1 was required to produce some documents, which were produced as 'Advance to staff' and 'Details of site-wise fund transferred to Mr. Gurpreet Singh Taneja' and the same were marked as Ex. PW-1/D1 and PW-1/D2 respectively. PW-1, during cross- examination, was also confronted with an email dated 08.07.2013 and the CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 9 said email was marked as Ex. PW-1/D1 (19.09.2018). The plaintiff's witness PW-1 was then discharged.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
8. Defendant in his defence, examined himself as DW-1, who was examined-in-chief by way of tendering of affidavit-in-evidence, Ex. DW-
1/1. DW-1 tendered and admitted in evidence following documents:
(i) The copies of emails as Mark DW-1/A (colly.).
(ii) The copy of statement of account in the form of an excel-sheet as Mark DW-1/B.
(iii) The copies of emails dated 23.10.2012 and 20.11.2012 as Mark DW-1/C.
(iv) A copy of email dated 05.11.2012 as Mark DW-1/D.
(v) A copy of email dated 14.01.2013 alongwith prescription slip as Mark DW-1/E.
(vi) A copy of defendant's application before the Labour Court, Gurgaon as Mark DW-1/F (colly.).
DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff on 09.12.2019, 20.01.2020, 16.11.2021 and 15.11.2022 and then discharged.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Sh. N.K. Daksh and Ld. Counsel for defendant, Sh. Mohd. Sharique Khan, who have argued in line with the respective case of parties as pleaded in parties' respective pleading.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 10 FINDING ON ISSUES:
10. Issue no.1: Whether defendant during the course of his employment with plaintiff was provided laptop, various confidential designs and documents?OPP And Issue no.2: If answer to issue no.1 is in affirmative, whether defendant on being asked by plaintiff to return the aforesaid documents and property failed to do so?OPP 10.1. Both the aforesaid issues are being dealt with together as they are inter-connected.
10.2. The burden of proving these issues was upon plaintiff.
10.3. It was the case of the plaintiff company that defendant was provided with laptop and various confidential designs/ documents of clients of plaintiff company. Plaintiff's witness PW-1, in his affidavit-in- evidence towards examination-in-chief, has also deposed the same.
10.4. Defendant, in his written statement as well as in his affidavit- in-evidence towards examination-in-chief, has admitted that he was provided with a laptop, which is still in his possession. Defendant, however, has denied that he was handed over with any confidential designs/documents of clients of plaintiff company.
10.5. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff company has argued that defendant never came forward to hand over the laptop. The defendant, DW-1 was extensively cross-examined on this point and was asked to show as to how and when he offered to hand over the laptop to plaintiff company.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 11 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant, has argued that defendant was always willing to hand over the laptop to plaintiff company and defendant, at the same time, kept on requesting the officials of plaintiff company to clear his outstanding dues.
10.6. Having considered the submissions of both parties and upon perusal of the evidence, I find that defendant in his email dated July 8, 2013 to the official of plaintiff company, which email was tendered in evidence on behalf of plaintiff itself as Ex.PW-1/6(colly.), had requested the official of plaintiff company to give him time for meeting for the purpose of submitting the company belongings and for clearing the outstanding amount of defendant. Defendant in the same email also explained that he was not able to come to the office of plaintiff on 09.04.2013 due to an accident of some one known to the defendant. However, the said email was not replied to on behalf of plaintiff company. Further, I find that plaintiff company, even in the present suit, has not prayed for any relief for the return of the said laptop. Thus, I am of the view that defendant cannot be blamed for not handing over the laptop to the plaintiff company.
10.7. As regard the plaintiff's claim that the defendant was also handed over with the confidential designs/documents, I find the same to be a merely bald averment/allegation, which plaintiff has failed to prove by adducing any evidence. Plaintiff company has failed to prove, either by leading any independent evidence, documentary or oral, or by cross- examining the defendant, DW-1 that the defendant was also handed over with the confidential designs/documents. Plaintiff has not filed any acknowledgement of defendant for the purpose of proving the said allegations.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 12 10.8. In view of the above, the fact of plaintiff handing over the laptop to defendant was never an issue between the parties. The remaining issues as to whether the plaintiff had handed over confidential designs/documents to defendant and whether defendant failed to return the said document and property, are decided against the plaintiff.
11. Issue no.3: Whether defendant on being asked by plaintiff for proof/supporting documents in respect of money spent by him on behalf of plaintiff company failed to produce proof to plaintiff?OPP 11.1. The burden of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff.
11.2. While the case of plaintiff is that defendant never submitted the proofs/supporting documents in respect of money spent by him, defendant claims that the said proofs/supporting documents were submitted with the officials of plaintiff company.
11.3. I find that there is a categorical claim in defendant's email dated 10 April 2013 that the details of all expenses incurred by defendant and by Amit Ranjan and Rajesh Vishwakarma, who were working under the defendant, had been submitted to Ashok and further that there was no other detail of expenses to be submitted. The said email was tendered in evidence as Ex. PW-1/6 (colly.) on behalf of plaintiff itself. Plaintiff never countered the said claim. It was after more than four months that the plaintiff company, vide its email dated August 24, 2013, Ex. PW-1/7, alleged that defendant had not submitted the accounts/ proofs of expenses incurred.
11.4. In view of the above, issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 13
12. Issue no.4: Whether defendant absented himself from his duties in the office of plaintiff till 06.01.2013?OPP 12.1. The burden of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff.
12.2. The use of the word 'till' before 06.01.2013 seems to be a typographical error as the pleadings of parties indicate that the actual issue was whether defendant absented himself since 06.01.2013.
12.3. While the case of the plaintiff is that defendant stopped coming to the office since 06.01.2013, defendant has contended that he had met with an accident and further that he was not allowed to join the duty, and was rather asked to submit resignation.
12.4. Defendant's email dated January 14, 2013, Mark DW-1/E (colly.) shows that defendant had raised a grievance that he was not able to access his official email ID and further that he was unable to come to office on account of him having met with an accident. Plaintiff's witness PW-1, in his cross-examination on behalf of defendant on 19.09.2018, also admitted that he had come to know about the accident of defendant through some other sources. Plaintiff company, vide email of the even date, required the defendant to submit medical certificate. If the case of plaintiff is that the act of defendant in absenting himself from the duty after 06.01.2013 was a misconduct, or dereliction of duty on his part, nothing prevented the plaintiff from taking any disciplinary action, or terminating the defendant. On the contrary, the fact that plaintiff company did not even bother to respond to the defendant's grievance that he was not able to access his email ID, substantiate the claim of defendant that he was asked to not to join the office and was rather asked to tender the resignation.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 14 12.5 In view of the above, though the defendant did not join the office after 06.01.2013, it cannot be said that plaintiff deliberately kept himself absented from job after 06.01.2013.
12.6 This issue is, thus, decided against the plaintiff.
13. Issue no.5: Whether due to the absence of defendant in the office of plaintiff, plaintiff suffered losses of clients and of profits? OPP 13.1. The burden of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff.
13.2. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff suffered losses on account of deductions from the payments made by the clients of plaintiff company due to delayed completion of their work/project. Plaintiff company for the purpose of proving the said losses has tendered in evidence its balance-sheets for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 as Ex. PW-1/12 to Ex. PW-1/14. Defendant, on the other hand, has disputed the claim of plaintiff that it suffered any such losses.
13.3. Plaintiff company has failed to establish the alleged losses merely on the basis of the balance-sheets tendered in evidence. I am of the considered view that such losses cannot be proved merely on the basis of plaintiff's own balance-sheets. Further, plaintiff's witness/PW1, during his cross-examination on 19.09.2018 admitted that no letter/legal notice was ever received by the plaintiff company from any of its clients regarding any delayed or unsatisfactory work. The plaintiff's witness PW- 1 also admitted that no client of plaintiff company ever filed any case claiming any loss against the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff company had failed to adduce any evidence on record for the purpose of proving the alleged losses on account of acts/omissions of defendant.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 15 13.4. In view of this, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
14. Issue no.6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 19,84,355/- from defendant?OPP 14.1. The burden of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff.
14.2. Plaintiff is seeking the recovery of Rs. 19,84,355/- under the following heads:
(i) Amount advanced by plaintiff to defendant and not Rs. 4,23,364.00 accounted for by the defendant.
(ii) One month salary amount in lieu of notice period Rs. 48,605.00
(iii) Interest @ 18% per annum on above amount since Rs. 2,12,386.00 01.01.2003 till 30.06.2015
(iv) Damages caused to the plaintiff due to breach of Rs. 13,00,000.00 contract by defendant,work and loss of reputation/goodwill and cost of properties and documents Total Rs. 19,84,355.00 14.3. As regard the first head of claim, plaintiff company is claiming that an amount of Rs. 4,23,364/- was advanced to the defendant, however, the defendant has not submitted any proofs/accounts in respect of the same. Defendant's defence is that he had submitted all the proofs/accounts of the amount/expenses incurred by him. Defendant is also claiming that plaintiff company has not paid an amount of Rs.
42000/- towards conveyance expenses and Rs. 68,000/- as expenses incurred by defendant out of his pocket.
14.4. Plaintiff company, for the purpose of proving its claim for an CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 16 amount of Rs. 4,23,364/- has relied upon the ledger, Ex. PW-1/11. Defendant has alleged the said ledger to be a forged and fabricated document. It is well settled position in law that a ledger has no evidentiary value unless the entries made in are proved by independent evidence which, in other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries, which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction, or by proving the entries in the ledger on the basis of receipt/voucher/bill. Without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, neither the plaintiff has examined its official who prepared the said ledger, nor has plaintiff tendered in evidence any other supporting proof to substantiate the entries of the ledger. Plaintiff company has also not brought on record any evidence to prove that the said amount i.e. Rs. 4,23,364/- was ever confronted to the defendant for the purpose of requiring him to submit the accounts/proofs of utilization of the said amount. Pertinent to note here is also that plaintiff is not claiming the said amount i.e. Rs. 4,23,364/- on the basis of any particular transfer(s) on any specific date(s). The said amount appears at the foot of the ledger, which ledger is in three parts, the one part commences from October, 2011 and two parts commence from April, 2012. Thus, plaintiff company is claiming the said amount on the basis of computation of so many entries of transfer made to and from defendant since the date of his joining the plaintiff company. Further, the plaintiff company did not even mention the said amount in its email dated 24.08.2013, Ex. PW-1/7 to the defendant. In view of this, the first head of claim amount i.e. an amount of Rs. 4,23,364/- cannot be said to have been proved against defendant.
14.5. Plaintiff company under the second head is claiming an amount of Rs. 46,605/- as one month's salary in lieu of notice period.
CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 17 Plaintiff's case is that as the defendant left the employment without serving the notice period of one month, defendant is liable to pay the said amount in accordance with clause 4 of the appointment letter, Ex. PW- 1/5. The defence of defendant is that it was the plaintiff company which did not allow him to join the job after 06.01.2013, and further he was required to submit resignation as a condition for settling his full and final claim. Defendant has also claimed that plaintiff company refused to pay Rs. 58,326/- towards salary for the period between 01.12.2012 to 06.01.2013.
14.6. The perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has neither specified the date of defendant tendering the resignation, nor has the plaintiff tendered in evidence the alleged termination letter. Plaintiff company, in its email dated 24.08.2013, Ex.PW-1/7, to the defendant gave an impression as if the defendant was still continuing in the employment of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff, vide the said email, also required defendant to pay three months salary in lieu of notice period. It is the defendant, who in his cross-examination on 20.01.2020, stated that he had resigned on 15.02.2013. Plaintiff company also did not deny the allegation of defendant in his written statement that his salary of Rs. 58,326/- for the period between 01.12.2012 to 06.01.2013 was not paid. It amounts to an admission on the part of plaintiff company. Plaintiff company has also failed to prove that it paid salary to the defendant till the date of his resignation i.e. 15.02.2013. Thus, plaintiff company has not come clean with all relevant facts. Rather, plaintiff company is guilty of suppressing the material facts. Plaintiff company, without proving that it paid all salary of defendant till the date of his resignation, cannot claim recovery of any amount from defendant in lieu of notice period. Even otherwise, I find merit in the defence of defendant that plaintiff company CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 18 had blocked the access of defendant to his official email ID and he was not allowed to join the office. In fact, plaintiff had created compelling circumstances for the defendant to submit the resignation under duress. In such circumstances, I do not find plaintiff to be entitled to the recovery of any amount from the defendant in lieu of any notice period.
14.7. In the third head, plaintiff company is claiming an amount of Rs. 2,12,386/- as an interest @ 18% per annum from 01.01.2013 till 13.06.2015. However, the said claim is liable to be rejected on two counts: (i) the pre-suit interest can be awarded only when there is a contract to this effect between the parties, which has not been proved in the present case; (ii) the plaintiff company already held to be not entitled to any claim under first two heads, the question of awarding any interest does not arise at all.
14.8. Under the fourth and last head, plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs. 13 Lakhs on account of damages suffered by it due to breach of contract by defendant, work and loss of reputation/goodwill and cost of properties and documents.
14.9. Firstly, plaintiff has utterly failed to explain the computation of the alleged claimed amount of Rs. 13 Lakhs. Secondly, the alleged damages cannot be considered to have been proved merely on the basis of adducing the balance-sheets for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 as Ex. PW-1/12 to Ex. PW-1/14. Thirdly, plaintiff's witness, PW- 1, in his cross-examination, admitted that no client of plaintiff company ever filed any case against the plaintiff on account of any alleged delayed/non-satisfactory completion of work. Fourthly and lastly, plaintiff has not been able to prove: (i) that defendant made a breach of contract; and (ii) that plaintiff suffered any loss or damage. In this regard, Section CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 19 73 of Contract Act, 1872, provides as under:
"73. Compensation of loss or damage caused by breach of contract When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract: When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
Explanation: In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by non-performance of the contract must be taken into account."
Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed, that defendant made a breach of contract and plaintiff suffered any loss or damages, plaintiff cannot claim any compensation for two reasons: (i) the said loss or damage cannot be said to be the proximate and direct consequence of defendant leaving the employment of plaintiff company without any notice; and (ii) the plaintiff, being a company with many other employees, could have avoided the alleged losses by getting the contract with its clients performed through its other employees.
14.10. In view of this, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
15. Issue no.7: Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for which period?OPP CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 20
15. The burden of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff.
15.1. The issue no.6, having been decided against the plaintiff and it being held that plaintiff is not entitled to any amount against the defendant, no question of awarding any interest arises at all.
15.2. In view of this, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
16. Issue no.8: Relief?
16.1. In view of the discussions, herein above, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
17. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost of the suit. Ordered accordingly.
18. Decree sheet be prepared.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
Announced & dictated in MITTAL Date: 2024.02.28
17:12:13 +0530
the open court on 28.02.2024
(Sachin Mittal)
ADJ-03/South-East District
Saket Courts, New Delhi/28.02.2024
Certified that this judgment contains 21 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2024.02.28 17:12:26 +0530 (Sachin Mittal) ADJ-03/South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi/28.02.2024 CS DJ No. 8583/16 CREONS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurpreet Taneja 21