Delhi District Court
Captain Tarun Jawa vs Spicejet Ltd on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MEENU KAUSHIK: DJ - 03:
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI
CS No. 58607/2016
CNR No. DLND010091292016
In the matter of:
Captain Tarun Jawa
S/o Late Major R.K. Jawa,
Permanent Resident of:-
38/4, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008.
...Plaintiff
Versus
SpiceJet Limited
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon (Haryana) - 122016.
...Defendant
Date of institution : 27.07.2015
Date on which reserved for judgment : 12.02.2026
Date of decision : 16.02.2026
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs. 22,62,470/- has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
Plaint/ Plaintiffs' version
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is a qualified pilot holding a valid Airlines Transport License, having an experience of 10 years to fly as commercial pilot with a CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 1/19 clean service record in the aviation industry and was working as First Officer with Air Asia India Pvt. Ltd.
3. That the defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of running an Airline under the name & style of SpiceJet Limited.
4. That the plaintiff was appointed by the defendant company for the position of Transition Captain (B737) in the Flight Operations Department vide appointment letter dated 27.12.2011.
5. That the plaintiff pursuant to receiving appointment letter dated 27.12.2011 immediately joined the service with the defendant company as Transition Captain and as per mandatory requirement in the aviation industry, the plaintiff was sent for training by the defendant company.
6. That the overall attitude of certain high level officials of the defendant company was not co-operative and the plaintiff subsequently learnt that some of his superiors were trying to get their own relatives placed on the post of Transition Captain in place of the plaintiff and consequently the plaintiff experienced a bitter relationship with certain senior officials. However, irrespective of such harsh environment the plaintiff worked hard to perform his duties in a committed and dedicated manner.
7. That since the date of plaintiff's appointment the defendant was in default of payment of salary to the CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 2/19 plaintiff due to which the plaintiff was constrained to raise his claim for payment of his outstanding salary even during the course of his employment and for that purpose the plaintiff sent several e-mails which were sent through the e- mail account "[email protected]" in the month of February, 2012 demanding the payment of salary for the period of 27.12.2011 to 31.01.2012 but the defendant failed to make any payment to the plaintiff and no payment was ever made over the entire period of employment of the plaintiff.
8. That in the month of March, 2012 the defendant while acting in malicious manner, issued an e-mail terminating the plaintiff from his services with immediate effect thereon, without even providing the stipulated notice period and the reason for termination.
9. That contrary to the provisions of clause 16, no hardcopy of the termination notice was issued to the plaintiff and the defendant malafidely and intentionally chose to send the alleged e-mail with regard to terminating the plaintiff arbitrarily only to the e-mail account "[email protected]" allotted to the plaintiff by the defendant and the said e-mail account was immediately thereafter blocked by the defendant itself.
10. That thereafter the plaintiff was assured by the defendant that the payment of his entire salary will be credited to his account within a few months as the defendant is undergoing some financial constraints and CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 3/19 needed some more time to arrange funds. However, even after the lapse of a long time no payment was made to the plaintiff till 21.10.2013 when the plaintiff again raised his claim for payment of his salary and other dues vide his e- mail dated 21.10.2013.
11. That in the circumstances and as per the terms contained in the appointment letter issued by the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to salary in lieu of notice period equivalent to 3 months amounting to 7,50,000/-Gross Salary.
12. That in addition to the above-mentioned amount of 7,50,000/- towards salary in lieu of notice period, plaintiff is also entitled to salary and emoluments accumulated till the date of termination from the date of appointment i.e. 27.12.2011 till March, 2012 amounting to 17,52,923/-.
13. That this amount of 17,52,923/- is the admitted outstanding amount according to Form 26 furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the defendant, beside the admitting that the aforesaid amount is credited to the account of the plaintiff, has also proceeded to deposit TDS to the tune of 6,89,772/- in respect of the aforesaid amount of 17,52,923/- only.
14. That defendant acting in an illegal and malicious manner has not paid the amount remaining after deduction of Tax at source, which is being in violation of the terms of appointment of the plaintiff, and is also in contravention to CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 4/19 the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 entailing various legal consequences provided therein.
15. That the plaintiff again waiting for a long time raised his claim for payment of his salary in the month of May, 2014 through various e- mails to several officers of the defendant company acting upon which the defendant paid only a sum of Rs. 2,44,195/- in the month of June, 2014 vide cheque no.011602 dated 26.05.2014.
16. That the plaintiff immediately raised his claim of remaining dues with the defendant vide his e-mail dated 11.06.2014, which was responded by the defendant on the very same day through its Vice President for the Human Resource and Administration Department. The above response was also marked to all senior officials of the Defendant clearly stating that he would revert further clarification and response as soon as possible.
17. That thereafter due the non-responsive and ignorant act of the defendant for a long while, the plaintiff was constrained to send a notice dated 16.08.2014 claiming his due payment. But the defendant maliciously failed to make any payment even after the expiry of the notice period as stipulated in the notice and till date no reply is received by the plaintiff.
Written Statement:
18. Defendant has taken preliminary objections in its written statement mentioning that this court does not CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 5/19 have territorial jurisdiction in the present suit. It is further stated on behalf of defendant that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has filed the present suit with the motive to extract money illegally. It is further stated that plaintiff has already received the amount towards full and final settlement of his claims against the defendant company and therefore he is estopped from claiming anything further from the defendant. It is further stated that mere filing of TDS with technical authority does not entail any acknowledgment under law. Reference has also made in this regard upon SP Brothers (Partnership Firm) v. Biren Ramesh Kakadia 2009 (1) Bombay CR 453 and Jyotsna K. Walia v. T.S. Parekh and Company 2007 (3) Bombay CR 77. It is further stated that the appointment of plaintiff was on probation for a period of six months which clearly stipulates that due to non-performance or unsatisfactory performance, the employment of plaintiff may be ceased without any notice at anytime during his employment. It is further stated that plaintiff had to undergo training as required for the specified period, failing which the management reserves the right to forfeit the amount paid towards training. It is further stated that plaintiff was to execute an indemnity bond as per the agreement but subsequently the plaintiff chose not to pay for the training and instead sought benefit of clause 10 of the offer letter and clause 14 of the terms and conditions of employment and executed an CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 6/19 indemnity bond cum service undertaking, wherein he undertook to serve the defendant company for a period of three years from the date of joining or else the plaintiff shall be liable to pay Rs. 10 lakhs in lieu thereof. It is further stated that the plaintiff did not attend the ground training classes regularly, for which he was counseled twice by the then GM Training & Standards/Deputy GM-Training. It was also reported from ground training school that plaintiff was not reported for duty/training from 18.01.2012 on the pretext that he had completed his course. It was also reported that plaintiff had attended training classes only for 9 days out of 16 days of the course. The leave of the plaintiff was unauthorized and the plaintiff was not released by the ground school. Ground school has not issued him the requisite certificate as he did not complete the course. The plaintiff also failed to seek permission from the concerned person/officer for his unauthorized leave from work/training and the said fact was also admitted by the plaintiff in his email dated 25.01.2012 sent to the defendant company. It is further stated that after looking into the facts and circumstances and despite giving counseling to the plaintiff on two occasions, his progress in the ground school was still count to be unsatisfactory. The then General Manager (PRC) Col. P.S. Bhan made a notesheet in which it was clearly mentioned that flight operations has recommended to terminate the services of the plaintiff. CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 7/19 It is further stated that since the performance of the plaintiff was reported unsatisfactory, his services were terminated with effect from 07.03.2012 which was duly communicated to him vide email and also by termination order of the even date in terms of clause (8) of the offer letter dated 11.07.2011 and clause 16 of the letter of appointment dated 27.12.2011.
19. It is further stated that as per the records of Defendant Company's Finance Department, final claim due on company amounted to Rs. 2,44,195/- which included Rs. 1,05,603/- for January, 2012, Rs. 97,044/- for February, 2012 and Rs. 41,548/- for the month of March, 2012 and the same has already been paid to the plaintiff on 26.05.2014 as full and final settlements of all the claims.
20. The demands raised by the plaintiff in his notice are illegal and unjustified and the said Notice of the Plaintiff was suitably replied to by the Defendant Company through its reply dated 16.09.2014 wherein all the facts of his case were dealt at length. However, the Plaintiff has malafidely and illegally chosen to file the present Suit for the alleged recovery of Rs. 22,62,470/-, which he is not legally entitled.
Replication
21. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant wherein plaintiff reiterated averments made in the plaint and denied all CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 8/19 the averments mentioned in the written statement by the defendant.
Issues
22. After completion of pleadings of parties following issues were framed:
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 22,62,470/-?OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so at what rate and for what period? OPP
iii) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees? OPD
iv) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD.
v) Relief. Plaintiff's evidence
23. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 who tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
a) True copy of Form 26 furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 is Ex. PW-1/1.
b) True copy of bank statement establishing part payment by the defendant is Ex. PW-1/2.
24. Witness was cross examined at length and discharged.
Defendant's evidence:
25. Defendant has examined Mr. Hom Dev Vivek, AR of defendant company as DW-1 and tendered his examination- CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 9/19 in-chief by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
a) Board Resolution as well as Authority Letter are Ex. DW-1/1.
b) Offer letter dated 11.07.2011 is Ex. DW-1/2 (has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/D2).
c) Indemnity Bond-cum-service undertaking dated 27.12.2011 executed by plaintiff is Ex. DW-1/3.
d) Copy of emails dated 25.01.2012, 27.01.2012 and 24.02.2012 is Ex. DW-1/4 (colly) (has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/D3).
e) Note-sheet of the General Manager (PRC) Col. P.S. Bhan dated 27.02.2012 is Ex. DW-1/5.
f) Termination Order dated 07.03.2012 is Ex. DW-1/6.
g) Copy of joining & reference bonus policy of the defendant company of the relevant period is Mark A.
h) Copy of said reply is Mark B.
i) Postal and courier receipts are Ex. DW-1/9.
j) Appointment Letter dated 27.12.2011 is Ex. DW-1/10 (has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1).
26. Witness was cross examined at length and discharged.
Findings
27. I have heard arguments and considered the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 22,62,470/-?OPP CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 10/19
28. Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. It is the claim of plaintiff that he is entitled for the salary in lieu of notice period besides the salary and emoluments accumulated till the date of termination since the date of his appointment i.e. for the period 27.12.2011 till March 2012. As per the plaintiff since the date of his appointment, defendant defaulted in payment of salary of the plaintiff for which plaintiff had sent several emails through his email account "[email protected]" however, no payment was made and thereafter in the month of March 2012 defendant issued an email terminating the plaintiff from his services with immediate effect without even providing the stipulated notice period. As per the plaintiff in clause 16 of the appointment letter dated 27.12.2011 the grounds for termination are specified but no such ground was cited in the email for termination and also contrary to the provisions of clause 16 no hard copy of termination notice was issued to the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, termination letter was issued to him only by way of email which is violation of clause 16.2 of the appointment letter. It is further the claim of plaintiff that amount of Rs. 17,52,923/- is admitted on behalf of defendant as the Form 26 furnished by defendant to the plaintiff as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 the said amount was credited to the account of plaintiff and TDS to the tune of Rs. 6,89,772/- was deposited. Contrary to the claim of plaintiff, it is contended on behalf of defendant that the appointment of plaintiff was CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 11/19 on probation for a period of six months which clearly stipulates that due to non-performance or unsatisfactory performance, the employment of plaintiff may be ceased without any notice at any time during his employment. It is further claimed on behalf of defendant that plaintiff had to undergo training for the specified period and in case of failure for completion of the training the management reserves right to forfeit the amount paid towards the training. It is further stated that the plaintiff had chosen not to pay for the training and instead sought benefit of clause 10 of the offer letter and clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the employment and executed an indemnity bond cum service undertaking, wherein he undertook to serve the defendant company for a period of three years from the date of joining or else the plaintiff shall be liable to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu thereof. As per the defendant, the plaintiff did not attend the ground training classes regularly for which he was counseled twice. It is further contended on behalf of defendant that it was reported from ground training school that plaintiff had not reported for duty/training from 18.01.2012 and he had attended training classes only for 9 days out of 16 days of the course and the leave of the plaintiff was unauthorized and he was not released by the ground school. It is further contended that the requisite certificate was not issued by the ground school to the plaintiff as he did not complete the course and the plaintiff has also failed to seek permission from the concerned officer for his unauthorized leave from CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 12/19 work/training and the said fact is admitted by the plaintiff in his email dated 25.01.2012. It is further contended on behalf of defendant that as the performance of plaintiff was reported unsatisfactory, his services were terminated w.e.f. 07.03.2012 which was duly communicated to him by email and also by termination order of the even date in terms of clause 8 of the offer letter dated 11.07.2011 and clause 16 of the letter of appointment dated 27.12.2011. Plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted his email dated 25.01.2022 sent by plaintiff to the defendant Ex. PW-1/D3 wherein he had mentioned about his five cases, non-reporting after 17.01.2012 and abstention. Plaintiff stated that the said cases pertaining to his matrimonial dispute. He admitted that he was absent from duties for 2-3 days after 17.01.2012 however he stated that he had taken telephonic permission from his immediate instructor in this regard. He further stated that he informed his instructor through his colleague but admitted that he had not mentioned the name of his colleague in his plaint or his evidence affidavit to whom he had sent verbal communication to his instructor. In his cross-examination, he could not tell the name of the colleague and stated that he does not remember the name as it happened more than 10 years ago. As per the claim of defendant, plaintiff had intentionally not filed the email Ex. PW-1/D3 to conceal his unauthorized abstention from the training. Plaintiff in cross-examination stated that he had attended his training in two different training sessions i.e. in the month of January 2012 and the remaining sessions were CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 13/19 covered in the month of February 2012 in the subsequent batch. However, he denied that he did not complete the training either in January 2012 or February 2012. He admitted that ground school used to submit the report regarding the progress and completion of training to the defendant company after conducting written exams. He further stated that after the completion of ground training he was supposed to get his completion certificate which was not given to him.
29. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in his plaint or evidence affidavit that he had asked for issuance of training completion certificate. He further stated in his cross-examination that since he was new in the company he was not aware of the redressal procedure and as such he had not made any communication regarding his harassment by the top officials and that he was afraid of serious consequences.
30. As per the defendant plaintiff attended only 9 days of training out of 16 days. Plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that he remained absent from duties for 2-3 days after 17.01.2012 and he could not tell the name of his colleague through whom he had sought permission of leave from his instructor and that certificate for completion of ground training was not issued to him. From these admissions it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff had failed to complete the ground training. As per admitted facts, plaintiff never asked for issuance of training CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 14/19 completion certificate. It is claim of defendant that in case of failure of completion of training, management had right to forfeit the amount paid towards training and as plaintiff had chosen not to pay for the training and instead had sought benefit of clause 10 of the offer letter and clause 14 of terms and conditions of the employment, he was bound to serve the defendant company for a period of three years from the date of joining else he was liable to pay Rs. 10,00,000/-. As per the defendant, considering the performance of plaintiff unsatisfactory, his services got terminated. Plaintiff could not give explanation during cross-examination as to why email Ex. PW-1/D3 was concealed by him which is related to his unauthorized abstention from training.
31. Clause 16 of letter of appointment Ex.PW-1/D-1 related to termination of services is produced hereunder:-
16. Termination of Services If at any time during your employment you are found guilty of any act of misconduct or willful breach of policy or negligence or dereliction of duty, disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders and instructions given to you from time to time or conduct on or off duty which is prejudicial to the interest, good name or reputation of the company, or where your performance has been found to be unsatisfactory, the management may dismiss/terminate you from service or give any lesser punishment as permissible under law. In addition, you shall be liable for all losses and damages to the company. 16.1 Upon the Company putting an end to this appointment, with or without notice, for any breach of rules and regulations or non-observance or any default on your part, you will not be entitled to any damage or compensation.
16.2 Notice to terminate in electronics form wherein your CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 15/19 identity cannot be ascertained such as SMS or personal e-
mail shall not be accepted as adequate notice of termination for the purposes of this agreement. Notice to terminate this contract will be accepted by the Company only when it is issued/submitted in a form wherein your identity is ascertainable (such as hard copy letter with original signatures).
32. As per clause 16 of Terms and conditions of employment the defendant had right to terminate the services of the plaintiff in case his performance is found to be unsatisfactory. As per clause 6 of the letter of Offer Ex. PW-1/D-2 during probation, either party could terminate the employment by giving one week notice and the probation period was initially for six months from the date of employment and the same could be extended as per clause 5 of the letter of Offer. Further as per clause 8 of the letter of Offer, due to non-performance or unsatisfactory performance employment of plaintiff could be ceased without any notice at any time during his employment with the defendant.
33. Plaintiff in his email dated 25.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/D-3 has mentioned that he did not report after 17.01.2012. He admitted in the email that he was absent for few days during the course as he was dealing with the divorce case pending in Bangalore and he could not take appropriate permissions but he informed his instructor through his colleagues.
34. From the cross examination of the plaintiff and considering the contents of the email of the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/D-3, it is concluded that the plaintiff was CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 16/19 supposed to complete the ground training which he failed to complete and that the plaintiff could not give explanation of his unauthorized abstention from duty/ training and thus, the performance of the plaintiff was considered by the defendant as unsatisfactory. In conspectus of above discussed facts, and considering the clause 5, 6 and 8 of Letter of Offer and clause 16 of terms and conditions of Appointment, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the plaintiff were unjustified and that defendant is liable to pay salary for the notice period and that plaintiff is entitled for the claimed amount from the defendant. Further, as far as the issue of deposition of TDS by the defendant for the plaintiff is concerned, the same cannot be considered as any admission of the defendant regarding any liability towards the plaintiff. The contention on part of the defendant in this regard that the same was independently deducted by the accounts branch in advance in view of appointment of the plaintiff without knowing about his unsatisfactory performance and further actions of the defendant are found tenable. Thus, the present issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so at what rate and for what period? OPP
35. As issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff, present issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.3: Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees? OPD CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 17/19
36. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 22,62,470/-. Plaintiff has affixed the requisite court fees for the said amount. No evidence is adduced by the defendant with respect to the present issue. Thus, it cannot be held that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees.
Issue No. 4: Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD.
37. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Defendant has not adduced any evidence in this regard. As per the plaintiff he has filed present suit for recovery of his dues since 27.12.2011 till March 2012 and the salary in lieu of notice period. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff on 26.07.2015. As per the own version of defendant payment of Rs. 2,44,195/- towards all the dues was given by the defendant in May 2014. As per the plaintiff amount of Rs. 2,44,195/- was only part payment out of the total dues. Considering the fact that payment is admitted to be made by the defendant in May 2014, hence, in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act it cannot be said that present suit is filed beyond the period of limitation.
Issue No. 5: Relief.
38. In view of the above discussed facts and as the issue no. 1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff, the suit of plaintiff is dismissed. No order is passed with respect to CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 18/19 costs.
39. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
40. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Announced in the open Court on 16th February, 2026) MEENU Digitally signed by MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date: 2026.02.16 17:16:04 +0530 (Meenu Kaushik) District Judge-03 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District New Delhi CS No. 58607/16 Captain Tarun Jawa v. SpiceJet Limited Pages 19/19