Delhi District Court
M/S Citifinancial Consumer Finance ... vs Indian Steel & Metal Worker'S Union on 10 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA :
CIVIL JUDGE01, SOUTH DISCTRICT, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 473/2010
Case ID NO.02406C0374492010.
M/s Citifinancial Consumer Finance Indian Limited
3, LSC, Local Shopping Centre,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi110062.
......... Plaintiff
versus
Indian Steel & Metal Worker's Union
(Regd. No. 4377)
Head Office 1800/9,
Govind Puir Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi110019.
(Through its General Secretary
Mrs. Rakesh Sharma)
...... Defendants
Date of Institution :25.11.2010
Date of reserving the order :11.05.2011
Date of pronouncement :10.06.2011
M/s Citifinancial Consumer Finance Indian Limited Vs.
Indian Steel & Metal Worker's Union(Regd. No. 4377)
Suit No. 473/2010 Page 1 of 4
JUDGEMENT :
1 By this order I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendent, its employees, agents, workers, men and all other persons acting through the defendant from staging a Dharna, holding demonstration, burning effigies etc. at the office of the plaintiff company and within a radius of 250 meters of the office which is stated to be situated at 3, Local Shopping Centre (LSC), Pushp Vihar, Opposite Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi62. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff is a limited company. Mr. Rajiv Seth is the power of attorney holder of the said company. Defendant is a workers Unions which has no relations with the plaintiff company. Plaintiff had a contract with M/S Interior Facelift. The said contractor was providing house keeping service to the plaintiff company and one Mr. Sunny was working at the plaintiff's office for last 4 ½ years. The said worker had lately stopped performing his duties to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. The worker last reported for duty on 10.08.2010 and at 2 p.m, left without authorization. Thereafter he continued to remain M/s Citifinancial Consumer Finance Indian Limited Vs. Indian Steel & Metal Worker's Union(Regd. No. 4377) Suit No. 473/2010 Page 2 of 4 absent. The defendant organization had sent a letter dated 11.11.2010. The plaintiff has relied upon a letter issued by the defendant dated 11.11.2010 stated to have been received on 18.11.2010 by the plaintiff. In the said letter the defendant has indicated that it intends to hold a demonstration and an indefinite Dharna besides burning effigies at the address of the plaintiff. The plaintiff apprehends that grate amount of inconvenience and hardship may be caused to the plaintiff in case the above threat by the defendant is carried out. 2 Summons were served on the defendant. Defendant failed to enter appearance and was proceeded with exparte. Plaintiff has led exparte evidence and proved the notice dated 11.11.2010. The oral testimony of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted. Plaintiff has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Karamchari Sangh and Others 1992 LAB. I.C. 474 (DHC). A Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had confirmed an ex parte order of injunction granted by the trial court against holding of Dharnas etc. within 50 meters of the premises of the plaintiff in that case.
M/s Citifinancial Consumer Finance Indian Limited Vs. Indian Steel & Metal Worker's Union(Regd. No. 4377) Suit No. 473/2010 Page 3 of 4 3 Plaintiff has been able to prove his case. Accordingly a decree of permanent injunction is passed permanently restraining the defendant from holding any Dharnas etc. within a radius of 50 meters of the premises of the plaintiff situated at 3, Local Shopping Centre (LSC), Pushp Vihar, Opposite Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi110062. 4 The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
5 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) dated 10.06.2011 Civil Judge1, South District, New Delhi M/s Citifinancial Consumer Finance Indian Limited Vs. Indian Steel & Metal Worker's Union(Regd. No. 4377) Suit No. 473/2010 Page 4 of 4