Delhi District Court
T.R. Alagh vs . Vijay Verma & Anr. on 2 June, 2015
CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Vijay Verma & Anr. 02.06.2015 (Order on application u/o 1 rule 10 (2) CPC moved by defendant no. 1) Present: None. 1.
It is stated in the application that plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of money towards arrears of salary with interest as per the allegations made specifically against the defendant no. 2 company and the defendant no. 1 has nothing to do in respect of the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 was Director of defendant no. 2 company for a short period during 20122013 and had resigned from the company in February, 2014. It is stated that the plaintiff was not under direct appointment of the defendant no. 1 but under the employment of defendant no. 2 company and a company is a legal entity which can sue and be sued and for the salary payments between the employee and the company, the director of the company cannot be made liable. Hence, no cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff qua defendant no. 1 who was the director of defendant no. 2 company and cannot be held liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it has been prayed that defendant no. 1 may be deleted from the array of memo of parties.
CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Vijay Verma & Anr. Page 1 of 4
2. The plaintiff contested the application by filing reply contending that defendant no. 1 is the main person who is the sole In charge of the affairs of the company and deals with the financial matters of the company and hence his presence is essential for proper adjudication of the present case. The other contents of the application are stated to be wrong and denied and the plaintiff has prayed for dismissal of the applications.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. By way of present suit, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of money of Rs. 9,94,405/ against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as a Senior Project Manager by the defendant on 01.01.2008 and he had been promoted as AGM on 01.04.2011 and thereafter he had been again promoted as General Manager and as a General Manager, the present consideration of the plaintiff is Rs. 79,999/ per month plus fuel charges of Rs. 15,000/ per month plus driver salary of Rs. 8500/ per month totaling to Rs. 1,03,499/. The plaintiff had worked in the defendant company since joining to 28.01.2014 and he never gave any chance of any kind of complaint to the defendant. It is stated that the salary and other dues of the plaintiff are due against the defendant since January, 2013 and an amount of Rs. 9,94,405/ is due after deduction of Rs. 3,43,500/. The plaintiff demanded his salary many times but no action has been taken CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Vijay Verma & Anr. Page 2 of 4 by the concerned department of the defendant company. It is stated that defendant has withheld the salary of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 9,94,405/ which the defendant company has not paid despite several reminders and service of legal notice. Hence, the present suit.
5. From the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that no allegation has been made by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 1 in his individual capacity. The defendant no. 1 has been impleaded being the Director of the defendant no. 2 company. The plaintiff was employed by defendant no. 2 company and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. If there is any arrears of salary, that is payable by the company and not be defendant no. 1. Merely because the defendant no. 1 happens to be director of the defendant company, he cannot be made personally liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any, of the company. There is nothing on record to show that there were any transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 or that defendant no. 1 stood guarantor for payment of outstanding dues on behalf of defendant company.
6. In the absence of privity contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 is not a necessary and proper party in the present suit. Hence, the application is allowed and the name of defendant no. 1 is deleted from the array of the parties. Amended memo of parties be filed.
CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Vijay Verma & Anr. Page 3 of 4
Case is now adjourned for 23.07.2015 for further proceedings.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 02.06.2015 CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Vijay Verma & Anr. Page 4 of 4