Delhi District Court
Kanchan Gautam vs M/S Eninov Systems Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 31 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH, SAKET COURT, NEW
DELHI
Civil Suit No.535/2019
DLST-01-006099-2019
In the matter of:
Kanchan Gautam
D/o Sh. Shyam Sunder
R/o C-263, Indira Nagar,
Rai Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.
Also at
Flat No.2123, Hanna Tower,
Gaur Saundaryam, Tech Zone-4,
GreaterNoida, Uttar Pradesh.
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s Eninov Sytems Pvt Ltd
Through its CEO, Sh. Vivek Mudgil,
Office at 303, Third Floor,
Bhanot House, 17,
Yusuf Sarai Community Centre,
New Delhi-110049.
2. Vivek Mudgil
CEO & Director of M/s Eninov Sytems Pvt Ltd.
3. Vivek Ranjan
Manager (Sales) & Director at M/s Eninov Sytems Pvt Ltd.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.1
Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
4. Hina Shukla
HR Manager at M/s Eninov Sytems Pvt Ltd.
All at : 15, Ground Floor, Tower-I,
Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector-62,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201309.
..... Defendants.
Date of institution : 09.09.2019.
Date of final arguments : 07.05.2024.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.07.2024.
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.10,00,000/-
1. The present suit has been filed by Ms. Kanchan Gautam (hereinafter called and referred to as plaintiff) against (i) M/s Eninov Systems Pvt Ltd (hereinafter called and referred to as defendant no.1), (ii) Vivek Mudgil (hereinafter called and referred to as defendant no.2), (iii) Vivek Ranjan (hereinafter called and referred to as defendant no.3) and (iv) Ms. Hina Shukla (hereinafter called and referred to as defendant no.4) for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith pendentelite interest @ 18% per annum.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a well educated lady holding a Masters degree in computer application. The defendant no.1 is a company registered under the statutory provisions of the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at 303, Third Floor, Bhanot House, 17, Yusuf Sarai, Community Centre, New Delhi- 110049. The defendant no.1 is involved in the business of providing software related services. Defendants no.2 and defendant no.3 are the CS No.535/2019 Page No.2 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors directors of defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 claims to be Assistant Manager (HR) at defendant no.1 company.
3. The plaintiff was appointed as an Industrial Trainee with the defendant no.1 in the year 2011 and thereafter she got her confirmation as Member Technical Staff Trainee in December 2011. The plaintiff was given various small projects under the supervision of defendant no.2. The plaintiff excelled in handling the projects of defendant no.1 and as per company practice, plaintiff was rewarded with 15 shares i.e. 1.5% of equity of defendant no.1 vide letter dated 26.07.2013 and these equity shares had to be vested equally on annual basis over a period of five years from the date of joining till July 2015. The plaintiff was thereafter promoted as Senior Member Technical Staff in November 2013. The plaintiff was awarded with special monthly bonus of Rs.10,000/- by the defendant no.1 applicable from 01.06.2014, over and above the regular salary package and monthly performance bonus. The plaintiff was again awarded 10 equity shares i.e. 1% equity to be vested for five years, for her high quality performance. The equity shares were always honoured as per past practice of defendant no.1.
4. The plaintiff performed her duties with hard work and dedication. An amount of Rs.2 Lacs was also awarded to the plaintiff vide e-mail dated 26.04.2016 and on 13.04.2016, plaintiff was promoted to Technical Manager. The plaintiff's annual compensation was upwardly revised in the year 2017 and again in the year 2018. On CS No.535/2019 Page No.3 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors 22.05.2018, plaintiff was provided with a retention bonus of Rs.20,000/- to be receivable on monthly basis. The plaintiff's work was always appreciated by the customer of namely 'View' project.
5. Defendant no.3 namely Vivek Ranjan had entered into integration business which was not growing enough. Till the year 2018, defendant no.3 had no concern with the 'View' project. In 2018, he was introduced to the new customers to provide support in government clearance of equipment being shipped by the 'View' customer for the first time.
6. During the year 2018-19, the plaintiff was victimized by defendant no.1 through defendant no.3 and 4 due to power tussle between the two directors of the defendant no.1. In the month of June 2018, defendant no.4 started mistreating the plaintiff. The plaintiff was working under the supervision of defendant no.2 and was not liable to report to the defendant no.3 as defendant no.3 had no role in the project 'View'. Defendant no.4 influenced the project View client in various meetings to change the plaintiff's role.
7. The plaintiff had been the most devoted employee of the defendant no.1 and plaintiff had diligently performed her duties. The defendant no.3 and 4 caused undue damage to the plaintiff and defamed her. Defendant no.4 made false allegations regarding the work and personal life of the plaintiff. Defendant no.4 falsely wrote that the plaintiff was reporting to the Board of Directors which never CS No.535/2019 Page No.4 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors happened. The defendant no.3 issued a show cause notice dated 28.05.2019 against the plaintiff on frivolous grounds and plaintiff replied the same on 30.05.2019 explaining each false allegation.
8. The defendant no.3 and 4 in connivance with each other refused to pay the performance bonus of the plaintiff and refused to transfer the equity shares to plaintiff. The plaintiff observed that her six months bonus was not given and no plausible reason was given by the defendants. In the appraisal meeting in May 2019, the plaintiff got really good review but the defendant no.3 stopped the salary correction as well as salary appraisal of the plaintiff on flimsy grounds despite the fact that defendant no.3 and 4 had no concern with the performance of plaintiff. The plaintiff was working directly under defendant no.2 but due to internal disputes between defendant no.2 and defendant no.3, no action was taken by the defendants. She patiently waited for her bonus and salary, however, instead of paying her they continued humiliating her. Defendants no.3 and 4 harassed the plaintiff so much that she was forced to resign. Plaintiff resigned on 10.06.2019. Defendant no.2 wanted the plaintiff to finish the project that she was handling but the defendant no.3 on the same afternoon, terminated her employment with immediate effect on flimsy grounds. The immediate termination of the plaintiff was put on hold by CEO of the company defendant no.2 and plaintiff was ordered to complete her notice period.
9. The plaintiff has prayed in her plaint that the defendants are liable not CS No.535/2019 Page No.5 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors only to clear the plaintiff legitimate dues but also liable to give a written apology to her and also to pay damages for the harassment cause to her. The defendants are liable to pay retention bonus, salary appraisal, six month bonus, PF amount and gratuity totaling for a sum of Rs.4,72,985/-. The plaintiff has also prayed that the defendants are further liable to transfer 2.5% equity to the plaintiff and also to pay her Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of earning, mental agony, harassment and damages. The total outstanding amount towards the plaintiff is Rs.17,68,685/-. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 13.08.2019 to all the defendants. The defendant no.3 vide reply dated 24.08.2019, partially admitted the facts mentioned in the legal notice but refused to honour the same. The defendant no.2 admitted most facts but refused to clear the dues of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
10.Summons were issued to the defendants. Defendant no.1 and 2 made appearance before the court through their counsel. Defendant no.3 also made appearance through his counsel on 17.12.2020 but he did not appear thereafter. Vide order dated 01.04.2021, defendant no.3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte.
11.Meanwhile, written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 wherein he denied each and every allegation made by the plaintiff. He stated that company could not be made liable for the acts of defendant no.3 and 4. Defendant no.2 being the CEO of the CS No.535/2019 Page No.6 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors company was also founder and director of defendant no.1. The plaintiff joined as an employee in July, 2011 and it has been stated by defendant no.2 in his written statement that the two revenue earning projects namely "View" and "ACS" were nurtured and built under the technical leadership of plaintiff and she always directly reported to defendant no.2. From 2018 HR Executive namely Hina Shukla (defendant no.4), who was earlier working under defendant no.2 started colluding with defendant no.3 and started disobeying the orders of defendant no.2.
12. Since 2018 defendant no.4 with defendant no.3 had disturbed the line of authority and had been creating problems in the management of the company. They had been harassing the senior and best performing employees including the plaintiff and other staff to undermine the supremacy of the company. It was further stated that three senior most employees including the plaintiff had left the services of the company due to the harassment of the HR.
13. Neither defendant no.1 nor defendant no.2 are responsible for the actions of defendant no.3 and 4 and hence no liability can be fastened on them.
14. In parawise reply, defendant no.1 submitted that services of defendant no.4 were terminated on 11.03.2019 but she is illegally continuing in the organization with support of defendant no.3 and is controlling the actions of HR and admin team. Defendant no.2 CS No.535/2019 Page No.7 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors admitted in the written statement that plaintiff was a trusted employee and gave good performance in the company due to which she was awarded and rewarded several times by the company. She was committed and dedicated and used to work overtime due to which she was given equity shares of the company as an incentive. Defendant no.2 further admitted that after the plaintiff left the new project, the company struggled to maintain the same headcounts and went into a loss of Rs.8 Lacs per month. Plaintiff was one of the top performers in the company. The answering defendant also admitted regarding the bonuses given to the plaintiff. He admitted that plaintiff was victimized by defendant no.4 and 3 to destroy the structure of technical hierarchy and to gain control over the company. Hence, defendant no.1 and 2 should not be made party to the legal actions initiated by the plaintiff. He admitted most of the averments made by the plaintiff all the time stating that defendants no.1 and 2 should not be held responsible for acts of defendants no.3 and 4.
15. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts of her plaint but she stated that the plaintiff was reporting to defendant no.2 and it was incorrect to say that he had no control over the acts of defendants no.3 and 4. Defendant no.2 was the CEO of the company and was responsible for day to day affairs of the company and it was his duty to ensure firmness, fairness and justice and he took no action against the malpractices and harassment done by other defendants upon the plaintiff.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.8Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
16. Defendants no.3 and 4 neither appeared nor filed their written statement, hence, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.04.2021.
17.On pleadings of parties, following issues were framed :-
(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate ? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction, as prayed ? OPP (4) Relief.
18.Thereafter, matter was listed for plaintiff evidence. During the plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined herself as PW1, who tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1) True copy of MCA degree, Ex.PW1/1.
2) True copy of details of defendant no.1, Ex.PW1/2.
3) True copy of e-mail dated 25.02.2016, Ex.PW1/3.
4) True copy of MCA training certificate, July 2011 & Ex.PW1/4.
5) True copy of e-mail dated 09.06.2016, Ex.PW1/5.
6) True copy of letter dated 26.07.2013, Ex.PW1/6.
7) True copy of e-mail dated 21.06.2014, Ex.PW1/7.
8) True copy of equity scan communication dt 23.01.2014, Ex.PW1/8.CS No.535/2019 Page No.9
Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
9) True copy of the defendant showing information of the members, Ex.PW1/9.
10) Copy of e-mail trail and e-mail dated 13.07.2014, Ex.PW1/10.
11) True copy of communication dt 18.05.2015, Ex.PW1/11.
12) True copy of e-mail dated 26.04.2016, Ex.PW1/12.
13) True copy of letter dated 13.04.2016, Ex.PW1/13.
14) True copy of documents regarding revised salary, Ex.PW1/14 (colly).
15) True copy of document dt 25.10.2016 and 20.09.2018, Ex.PW1/15.
16) True copy of document dated 25.04.2018, Ex.PW1/16.
17) True copy of document dated 17.05.2018, Ex.PW1/17.
18) E-mail trail containing e-mail of 13.02.2019, Ex.PW1/18.
19) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 08.03.2019, Ex.PW1/19.
20) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 16.04.2019, Ex.PW1/20.
21) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 29.03.2019, Ex.PW1/21.
22) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 08.03.2019, Ex.PW1/22.
23) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 29.03.2019, Ex.PW1/23.
24) True copy of show cause notice dated 28.05.2019 and reply, Ex.PW1/24.
25) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 31.05.2019, CS No.535/2019 Page No.10 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors Ex.PW1/25.
26) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 29.05.2019, Ex.PW1/26.
27) True copy e-mail trail containing of e-mail dt 10.06.2019 for resign, Ex.PW1/27.
28) True copy e-mail trail containing of e-mail dt 10.06.2019 for termination, Ex.PW1/28.
29) True copy of e-mail trail containing e-mail dt 10.06.2019 for complete the notice period, Ex.PW1/29.
30) Legal notice dated 30.08.2019, Ex.PW1/30.
31) True copy of reply dt 24.08.2019, Ex.PW1/31.
32) True copy of reply dt 30.08.2019, Ex.PW1/32.
33) True copy of communication, Ex.PW1/33.
19. PW1 was duly cross-examined. In her cross examination, she admitted that in the suit, she was not claiming anything against defendant no.2 in his personal capacity and she had not been personally harassed by defendant no.2 in office or otherwise.
20. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff in support of her case and plaintiff's evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
21.During the defendant's evidence, defendant examined Sh. Vivek Mudgil as DW1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
CS No.535/2019 Page No.11Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
1. Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/4 to Ex.DW1/26, Ex.DW1/28, Ex.DW1/31 to Ex.DW1/33, Ex.DW1/36 to Ex.DW1/42 are emails of different dates.
2. Ex.DW1/2 is (OSR) copy of certificate issued by defendant to plaintiff.
3. Ex.DW1/3 is letter dated 26.05.2010 written by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3.
4. Ex.DW1/27 is copy of petition no.83/241/ND of 2019.
5. Ex.DW1/29 is letter dated 17.12.2012 sent by defendant no.2 to Anjali Kaushal.
6. Ex.DW1/30 is letter dated 18.04.2017 sent by defendant no.2 to Anjali Kaushal.
7. Ex.DW1/34 is copy of invoice dated 08.10.2018.
8. Ex.DW1/35 is copy of invoice dated 01.11.2019.
9. Ex.DW1/43 is certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act.
22. DW-1 was duly cross-examined by counsel for plaintiff and he stated that plaintiff was working under his supervision and was not liable to report to defendant no.3. he admitted that harassment was being done at the behest of defendant no.3 Mr. Vivek Ranjan and defendant no.4 Hina Shukla upon the plaintiff. On being questioned as to what action did he take against defendant no.3 Mr. Vivek Ranjan and defendant no.4 Hina Shukla, he answered that when he realized that harassment is significant, he terminated defendant no.4 but defendant no.3 illegally continued the job of Hina Shukla. Thereafter, he filed a case against defendant no.3 in NCLT Ex.DW1/27.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.12Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
23. He further stated that defendant no.3 was only a Manager (Sales) in the defendant no.1 company and had no role in the project 'View' till 2018. Role of plaintiff was changed after defendant no.3 and 4 had their first meeting with 'View' customer but he could not tell say if their meeting negatively impacted the role of plaintiff. He further admitted that he had formed other companies in past with the aid and knowledge of defendant no.3 and the idea of floating these company was to boost and promote the business of defendant no.1, and there was no conflict of interests. He further stated that he started those companies after informing defendant no.3 to which he had no objection. He stated that he had asked plaintiff to help him forming the last company and she was continuing to assist him now also. He admitted that plaintiff had never acted against the interest of defendant no.1.
24.Defendant's evidence was thereafter closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
25.Final arguments were addressed by plaintiff and defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and written arguments were also filed.
26. Plaintiff submitted that she had filed a suit for damages for harassment and against wrongful termination, grant of salary and other perquisites and 2.5% equity of defendant no.1 company on the date of illegal termination of the plaintiff. Defendants no.3 and 4 never filed their reply and their opportunity to file the written CS No.535/2019 Page No.13 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors statement was closed. Defendants nos.1 and 2 who had filed joint written statement admitted that it was due to defendants nos.3 and 4 that harassment was faced by the plaintiff and defendants nos.1 and 2 could not control the actions of defendants nos.3 and 4. Defendants nos.1 and 2 further admitted that plaintiff had diligently performed all her duties to complete satisfaction of the defendants. She demanded Rs.10 Lacs from defendants nos.3 and 4 for harassment caused to her. She further demanded her legitimate dues from the company to the tune of 2.5% of equity shares.
27. Defendants nos.1 and 2 argued that they could not be made liable for actions of defendants nos.3 and 4. Defendant no.2 was the founder and director of the company and all the decisions related to the company were taken by defendant no.2. He had 50% equity share holding. He was also taking all the important decisions of the company, however, decisions were taken with the knowledge and consent of the senior management persons of the company. The defendant no. 3 also used to address defendant no.2 as CEO.
28. In July 2018, defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant No.3 started disobeying the orders of the defendant No.2 and defendants No. 3 & 4 despite being persons of non-technical background tried taking control over the company not realizing that it was a technical company dealing with software developments. They disrupted the line of authority and questioned the status of defendant No.2 as CEO of defendant No.1 company. They harassed the best performing, CS No.535/2019 Page No.14 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors technical resources including the plaintiff and other employees, namely, Ms. Swati Mittal, Ms. Rajnish Kaur, Ms. Nidhi Jindal, Ms. Shalini Chaturvedi etc. to undermine the supremacy of the technical people of the company. Even after being terminated, defendant No.4 continued to lead the HR operations and due to the harassment by defendants No. 3 & 4, three senior most technical resources of defendant No.1 left the company including the plaintiff.
29. It was argued that neither the defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 can be held responsible for the actions of defendants No. 3 & 4. Defendants nos.1 and 2 also admitted in the final arguments that as part of encouragement for the employees to work harder and give their best performances it was the practice of the company to award equity shares to the employees. This used to be done after discussion and verbal consent of defendant no.3. Seven people, including the plaintiff, were given equity shares between 2012 to 2014 and all the persons awarded have been compensated except the plaintiff.
30. Plaintiff was also granted special bonus of Rs.20,000/- which was given to only few senior people based on their performance and contribution to the company. Defendant no.2 also stated that plaintiff had done her duties with utmost dedication and commitment and the average hours per day of the plaintiff were more than any other employee.
31. 'The View' project also flourished due to the efforts of the plaintiff CS No.535/2019 Page No.15 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors and more than 90% of the company's profits were generated from the View project. After the plaintiff left, the View project also suffered which was due to the interference of defendants nos.3 and 4. As the plaintiff was the top performer in the company she got the highest raise and her retention bonus was increased to Rs.20,000/- per month on 13.07.2014 and apart from the plaintiff, other employees were also given varying amounts of retention bonuses as per their contribution to the company. This was done by defendant no.2 in capacity of a CEO.
32. The business of defendant no.3 which was integration business was not growing enough to support his salary, so he associated himself with the software business. Defendant no.3 was introduced to View customers in June, 2018 to provide support in clearance of equipments and after their entry into the software business, defendants nos.3 and 4 started questioning the performance of the plaintiff. They held a number of meetings with the View clients and after those meetings, the role of plaintiff was changed from Technical Manager to Individual Contributor.
33. As far as the allotment and equitable compensation of equity shares is concerned, the same has been admitted by defendants nos.1 and 2 and it is stated that the non-allotment was due to the obstacles and interference by defendant no.3. The non-allotment and the stoppage of the bonus was done by defendant nos.3 and 4 without following any procedure of the company.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.16Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
34. Defendants nos.1 and 2 admitted that 2.5% equity shares were right and the same was allotted to her after discussion with defendant no.3 and other senior members and plaintiff should be suitably compensated for her work.
35. Defendant no.3 filed his written arguments and also addressed detailed arguments. He stated that plaintiff and defendant no.2 were in collusion with each other and the suit being collusive suit, the same should be dismissed. He stated that defendant no.1 was formed and started by defendants nos.2 and 3 with the hard earned money of defendant no.3 and his sister, who was the wife of defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 had no financial contribution in the formation and functioning of defendant no.1 company. Defendant no.3 stated that plaintiff and defendant no.2 were living together which fact can also be verified from the memo of parties. It is submitted that the address of the plaintiff in the memo of parties is the same as the address of defendant no.2 in the affidavit filed with the written statement. Due to relationship between plaintiff and defendant no.2, a divorce petition was filed by defendant no.2 against his wife, who is sister of defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 further stated that defendant no.2 used to favour the plaintiff out of the way. He promoted the plaintiff to the post of Senior Technical Staff and ignored all rules relating to timing and leave count for the plaintiff. He even awarded the plaintiff a monthly bonus of Rs.10,000/- from 01.06.2014 and Rs.20,000/- from 01.07.2014. Defendant no.2 also gave an amount of Rs.2 Lacs CS No.535/2019 Page No.17 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors as special bonus without any reason from the company's account and also promoted her to Technical Lead on 01.04.2015. He again promoted her to Technical Manager on 13.04.2016 and gave her retention bonus of Rs.20,000/- in 2017 and thereafter another retention bonus on 22.05.2018. Her salary was also doubled every year and several other favours were given to her out of the way.
36. Defendant no.2 was spending too much money of the company which was not acceptable to defendant no.3 and therefore dispute arose between the two directors over the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 also wanted to give 2.5% equity shares but the same was opposed by defendant no.3 as she was already overpaid and hence the equity shares transfer was denied by defendant no.3. Defendant no.2 also unilaterally declared himself the CEO and also instigated other employees to initiate legal action against defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 also submitted in his written submissions that plaintiff was also working as a consultant in another company which was in the knowledge of defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 came to know about this fact only later.
37. In fact, defendant no.3 later on came to know that plaintiff had secretly formed a company in the name of M/s. Einn Software Pvt. Ltd. with the help of defendant no.2, which was involved in the business of developing and selling computer softwares exactly identical and competitive with the business of defendant no.1 company. This act of the plaintiff was prejudicial to the interest of CS No.535/2019 Page No.18 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors defendant no.1 company and was also violation of terms and conditions of employment of the plaintiff. Defendant no.3 also issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff on 28.05.2019 for diverting business of defendant no.1 and divulging confidential data.
38. He further stated that plaintiff was already released all her dues which had been admitted by the plaintiff in the plaintiff itself hence no cause of action remained Further, the collusion between plaintiff and defendant no.2 was visible from contents of the written statement as defendant no.2 has admitted all the facts and allegations of the plaintiff. Defendant no.3 further stated that the court had no jurisdiction to order transfer of equity shares and that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties. Defendant no.4 had nothing to do with the dispute and she had been wrongly arrayed.
39. Qua the equity shares, it has been stated that no resolution was passed in regard to the transfer of the equity shares and neither this issue was discussed with other director i.e. defendant no.3. Moreover, the demand of equity shares was barred by limitation as the shares were promised in 2013 and 2014 and were demanded in 2019 by way of present suit. He has also stated that the documents filed by the plaintiff were fabricated and she was not entitled to any equity shares.
40. Rebuttal arguments were also addressed by plaintiff and defendants nos.1 and 2 wherein the plaintiff submitted that defendant no.3 addressed arbitrary arguments and did not confine himself to the CS No.535/2019 Page No.19 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors plaintiff's case rather he made up a new story entirely and travelled beyond his scope. Therefore, the entire submission in the written arguments were legally impermissible and they ought to be rejected. Defendant no.3 should not be permitted to raise any defence at the stage of final arguments as he was proceeded ex-parte and never filed any written statement nor furnished any documents, hence all his assertions were impermissible in law. Defendants nos.1 and 2 also rebutted the written submissions stating that all the allegations made by defendant no.3 were incorrect and without any supporting basis and as defendant no.3 had never sought setting-aside of the ex-parte order nor filed any reply to the plaint his submissions should be rejected at the outset.
41. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, the issue- wise findings of the court are as follows:-
The undersigned shall firstly decide issues no.1 and 2 together as the same are inter connected :-
(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate ? OPP.
42. The plaintiff has filed the present case seeking mandatory injunction with respect to equity shares alongwith damages in the sum of Rs.10 Lacs with interest. It is a settled law that damages are calculated based on injury suffered by the plaintiff, the financial losses incurred CS No.535/2019 Page No.20 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors by the plaintiff and any other relevant considerations due to the defendant's wrongful conduct. Then has to be a careful assessment by the court of plaintiff's losses and the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the actual loss and damaged caused.
43. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, 2000 (6) SCC 113, as under:
"Normally, no damages in contract will be awarded for injury to the plaintiffs feelings, or for his mental distress, anguish, annoyance, loss of reputation or social discredit caused by the breach of contract;..The exception is limited to contract whose performance is to provide piece of mind or freedom from distress. Damages may also be awarded for nervous shock or an anxiety state (an actual breakdown in health) suffered by the plaintiff, if that was, at the time the contract was made, within the contemplation of the parties as a not unlikely consequence of the breach of contract".
44. The plaintiff has stated in her plaint as well as her evidentiary affidavit that she was victimized by defendant no.1 through defendant no.3 and 4 due to the power tussle between the two directors of the company and as she was performing extremely well, she was made the target. She was mistreated by defendant no.4 as stated by her in her plaint. She has stated that her role was changed after meetings were held between defendant no.3 and 4 with the View client namely Nitin Khanna. The plaintiff has not enumerated or detailed any incident of harassment and how she was mistreated by defendant no.3 or 4. She has stated that her position was changed after meetings CS No.535/2019 Page No.21 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors were held between the client and defendant no.3 and 4 and this does not explain in any way that how she was mistreated or harassed. She has further stated that defendant no.3 pinpointed to her performance and she was not allowed to work from home but this noway explain any harassment or mistreatment as any employment, it is normal for the seniors or the bosses to give directions to employees and perusal of Ex.PW1/20 in no way seems to be rude rather it is a normal conversation between the plaintiff and one Ayushi from the HR Department. The email dated 02.04.2019 can also be termed as directory and in no sense rude to cause mental harassment and agony to a normal person having balanced approach.
45. Plaintiff has stated that her reputation has been injured and she has also been defamed by defendant no.3 and 4. In order to show that she had been defamed, plaintiff was supposed to produce witnesses to prove the same. Plaintiff did not produce any official or employee from the company, who could testify that the reputation of the plaintiff had been lowered in the eyes of that person due to the acts of defendants no.3 and 4.
46. She has further stated that she had faced humiliation and had been shown down in front of her own team members who she was leading but she did not examine any of the team members to prove that her image was tarnished in their eyes due to the acts of defendants no.3 and 4.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.22Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
47. Plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.10 Lacs from defendants no.3 and 4 but has not been able to explain the loss caused to her due to the acts of defendant no.3 and 4. She simply stated that she had faced mental harassment and agony but has failed to bring anything on record to show that she suffered any physical or mental harm due to the harassment.
48. Mental harassment is actually a conduct which is hostile and occurs frequently over a long period directly or indirectly with defamed individual or excludes themselves from her. Its continuous repetition may have destructive or impairing impact on the victim.
49. Plaintiff has not brought anything on record to show that she has faced any physical or mental harm such as depression or any other medical condition due to the act of the defendants. It is an important ingredient to prove mental harassment that the conduct of the defendant should be of such a nature that it draws an impact on the employees ability to carry out is not her duties in an efficient efficacious and responsible manner.
50. Plaintiff herself had admitted that after she was given a show cause notice by defendant no.3, defendant no.2 permitted her to finish the project that she was handling and he even made her complete her notice period. She was even paid her dues including arrears of salary, PF, gratuity etc. She has not explained how she had calculated the figure of Rs.10 Lacs as damages and how she is entitled for the same.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.23Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors
51. Plaintiff had no loss of earnings and she herself admitted in her claim that she started working in a company alongwith the defendant no.1 as a consultant as she has specifically stated that "the CEO/defendant no.2 requested for her support for forming another company to support the business of defendant no.1 company. Plaintiff readily agreed and has been working on that aspect as well".
52. As noted earlier the allegations of mental agony and harassment has also not been proved as the plaintiff has nowhere stated in the entire suit that the defendant no.3 and 4 had used any derogatory or defamatory words for the plaintiff. Except for a show cause notice, no documents has been filed by the plaintiff and issue of show cause notice cannot be called harassment by an employer as it gives an opportunity to employee to explain his or her conduct if the employer has objected to the same.
53. The suit of the plaintiff qua the damages claimed is not proved. It is a settled law that the suit of the plaintiff has to stand on its legs and the plaintiff has not been able to show how the conduct of the defendants had caused her loss of such kind to claim compensation and damages. Hence, issued no.1 stands decided in favour defendants 3 and 4 and against the plaintiff.
54. As issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff, hence, issue no.2 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants no.3 and CS No.535/2019 Page No.24 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors 4 and plaintiff is not entitled to any interest.
Issue No.(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.
55. Onus to prove this issue is also on the plaintiff. By way of seeking mandatory injunction, the plaintiff has sought 2.5% of equity share which were allotted to her vide letter dated 26.07.2013 which is Ex.PW1/6 as per which, 1.5% of equity amounting to 15 shares on the said date were granted and vide letter dated 23.06.2014 which is Ex.PW1/8 as per which, 1% of equity amounting to 10 shares on the said date were granted. Plaintiff has prayed that the said shares were never transferred in her favour despite the promised allotment neither at the time of issuance of the letter nor at the time she resigned from her job.
56. Defendants nos.1 and 2 in their written statement admitted having transferred 2.5% equity shares in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants no.1 and 2 admitted that it was the practice of the company to award equity shares of the company and this used to be done after discussion and verbal consent of defendant no.3. Apart from the plaintiff, six other employees were also given equity shares and it was duly admitted by defendants no.1 and 2 in the written statement that all the employees except the plaintiff had duly been compensated for the amount of equity. He admitted that plaintiff was a sincere employee who had played a major role in building the team and assuring proper deliveries to the clients. She had also given more CS No.535/2019 Page No.25 Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors average hours to the company than any other employee hence she deserved to be transferred the equity shares or suitably compensated with respect to the 2.5% equity.
57. Defendant no.3 did not file any written statement neither brought anything on record to rebut the claim of the plaintiff. He simply stated that the letters relied upon by the plaintiff were forged and fabricated and that the claim was barred by limitation. Qua the limitation aspect, it is observed that the defendant resigned from the job on 10.06.2019 and when she was not transferred the shares at the time of resignation, she demanded the same by way of the present suit which was filed in September, 2019 within the period of limitation. As far as the stated of the defendant with respect to genuiness of the letters is concerned, in the absence of any document or any evidence to prove the ingenuity of the document, the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the plaintiff remains un- controverted and unchallenged, hence, the Court finds no ground to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff's witness. Documentary evidence led by plaintiff's witness deserves to be accepted on its face value. In view of un-rebutted and unchallenged oral and documentary evidence led by plaintiff qua the claim of equity, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove that she is entitled to 2.5% equity shares transferred to her by defendants. In view of above discussion, issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS No.535/2019 Page No.26Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors Relief.
58. In view of the above discussions, the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and she is entitled to 2.5% of equity shares which were to be transferred to her by defendants as per the letters dated 26.07.2013 and 23.06.2014.
59.No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The present decree is passed subject to filing of deficient court fees, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in open court signed by
PURVA
On 31st July, 2024 (Purva Sareen)
PURVA SAREEN
SAREEN Date:
District Judge-01, South,
2024.08.05
21:27:28
Saket District Courts,
+0530New Delhi
CS No.535/2019 Page No.27
Kanchan Gautam Vs M/s Eninov Systems P. Ltd & Ors