Delhi District Court
Mohit Kapoor vs Ms Sisl Infotech Pvt Ltd And Ors on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.593/2021
DLST-01-009666-2021
Mohit Kapoor
S/o Sh. Raman Kapoor
R/o 84 LIG DDA Flats
Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi
.....Plaintiff
Vs
1. M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd
Through Its Director/Managing Director
2. M/s Tech Jockey Pvt Ltd
Through Its Director/Managing Director
Both Based at 81/1/Second Floor
Aurobindo Towers, Adchini,
New Delhi
.....Defendants
Date of institution : 08.12.2021
Date for reserving orders : 30.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.05.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR DAMAGES
1. The present suit has been filed by Mohit Kapoor (hereinafter referred to and called as plaintiff) for damages against M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.1) and M/s Tech Jockey Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.2).
2. The case of the plaintiff is that both the defendants are IT companies based in Delhi. Plaintiff was offered to join as Senior Manager (Sales) in CS No.593/2021 Page 1 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr the defendant company vide e-mail dated 26.09.2017. Plaintiff accepted the offer and an appointment letter was issued to him and plaintiff joined the defendant company at a monthly salary of Rs.81,000/-. Thereafter, plaintiff performed his duties sincerely and put his best efforts to achieve the goals and objectives of the company.
3. Plaintiff was transferred with defendant no.2 vide e-mail dated 08.01.2019 and he continued to serve the said company. Plaintiff was further provided incentives/sales variables vide e-mail dated 14.01.2019 in the salary ratio of 80:20. The salary of the plaintiff was enhanced to Rs.89,100/- per month by way of increment w.e.f 01.04.2019. Plaintiff put his best efforts and had been provided incentive for quarter ending October to December 2018 @ Rs.60,750/- as provided in e-mail dated 15.03.2019.
4. The plaintiff intimated for relieving the services of defendant company vide e-mail dated 13.08.2019 by serving one month notice which was duly accepted by the defendant company vide letter dated 16.08.2019 wherein the services of plaintiff were immediately terminated on 14.08.2019. The plaintiff was e-mailed on 14.08.2019 at 06.09 pm to complete relieving formalities by 06.30 pm. It is further averred that due to short notice, full and final formalities could not be completed and plaintiff visited the office of the defendant company on 16.08.2019 and all formalities were completed and plaintiff was assured for final compensation upon relieving.
5. The plaintiff thereafter pursued for his full and final settlement CS No.593/2021 Page 2 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr compensation but defendant company failed to resolve the issue. Plaintiff requested several times for final settlement via various e-mails to the defendant company. Thereafter, the plaintiff intimated his final settlement compensation amount computed as Rs.45,071/- via e-mail. However, the attachment provided in the said e-mail provided total compensation amount as Rs.39,426/-. Plaintiff raised objection to the same via e-mail dated 14.10.2019 and put reminder of the same on 16.10.2019 via e-mail.
6. The defendant company refused to provide proper information and details over the calculation of the total compensation amount payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought to the notice of the defendant company regarding full and actual compensation via e-mail dated 23.10.2019 as Rs.2,84,189/-. The said e-mail of the plaintiff was never replied by the defendants. Thereafter, matter could not be pursued due to Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiff again sent a reminder vide e-mail dated 25.08.2021. However, the official of the defendants company intimated having closed the subject being there no response from the plaintiff. It is further averred by plaintiff that defendants themselves failed to follow up the matter. The plaintiff thereafter sent e-mails dated 02.09.2021, 17.09.2021, 28.09.201 and 25.10.2021 which were not replied.
7. The plaintiff had also requested the Director of the defendant company namely Sh. Arjun Mittal vide whatsapp message dated 19.10.2019 and 29.09.2021 but was of no avail. The plaintiff had no other efficacious remedy but to file the present suit against the defendants. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
CS No.593/2021 Page 3 of 19Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr
8. Defendants were summoned and they made appearance before the court and written statement was filed on behalf of defendants wherein it was submitted that suit deserves to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. The plaintiff joined initially with defendant no.1 and admittedly was transferred to defendant no.2 where he started drawing salary from defendant no.2 company.
9. The defendant stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was transferred to defendant no.2 company due to his consistent misbehavior with seniors, colleagues and clients and also because of his non- performance in the company. Upon seeking second chance, plaintiff was transferred to defendant no.2 company. The plaintiff was not competent to procure orders and sales as desired by the defendant no.1 company. The plaintiff was extremely poor in his performances which led to enormous losses to both the companies.
10.It was further averred in the written statement that all the employees in sales department get incentives to boost their morale and plaintiff was also given such incentives. However, plaintiff never delivered to the promises, hence, he is not entitled to any claims as averred in the suit. It was admitted in the plaint itself that plaintiff was terminated on 14.08.2019, hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as claimed. It was admitted in para 9 & 10 of the plaint that full and final settlement was duly done on 16.08.2019 and plaintiff never raised an issue on 16.08.2019. The e-mails issued/sent by the plaintiff are an afterthought and the present suit has been filed only to harass the defendants.
CS No.593/2021 Page 4 of 19Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr In parawise reply on merits, the defendants denied all the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint. Defendants stated that suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
11.Plaintiff filed replication/rejoinder to the written statement of defendants controverting the stand taken by defendants in their written statement and reiterated the facts of his plaint.
12.After completion of proceedings, issues were framed vide order dated 16.02.2023 as under :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages against the defendant in the sum of Rs.3,52,393/- ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum pendentelite ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
4. Relief.
13.Thereafter, matter was listed for plaintiff evidence. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.PW1/A, email dated 26.07.2017.
2. Ex.PW1/B, original appointment letter dated 01.11.2017.
3. Ex.PW1/C, email dated 14.01.2019.
4. Ex.PW1/D, email dated 15.03.2019.
5. Ex.PW1/E, email dated 02.05.2019.
6. Ex.PW1/F, email dated24.07.2019.
7. Ex.PW1/G, new salary structure.CS No.593/2021 Page 5 of 19
Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr
8. Ex.PW1/H (colly), Salary Slip for the months of May to July, 2019.
9. Ex.PW1/J (colly), email dated 13.08.2019 & 14.08.2019.
10. Ex.PW1/K, acceptance of resignation dated 16.08.2019.
11. Ex.PW1/L, email dated 11.10.2019.
12. Ex.PW1/M, email dated16.10.2019.
13. Ex.PW1/N, email dated 18.10.2019.
14. Ex.PW1/O, final settlement.
15. Ex.PW1/P, email dated 23.10.2019.
16. Ex.PW1/Q, email dated 02.09.2021.
17. Ex.PW1/R (colly), emails dated 17.09.2021, 23.09.2021, 28.09.2021 and 25.10.2021.
18. Ex.PW1/S (colly), email dated 11.08.2021, 12.08.2021, 16.08.2021, 18.08.2021, 25.08.2021 and 02.09.2021.
17. Ex.PW1/T (colly), screenshot of whatsapp messages dated 19.10.2019 and 29.09.2021.
18. Ex.PW1/U, certificate under Section 65B of the IE Act.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for defendant, witness stated that he joined the defendant no.1 company in October 2017 as Senior Manager. Witness stated that he had filed e-mails dated 15.03.2019 reflecting incentive paid to him for his achievements by the defendant company (Ex.PW1/E). Witness denied that he was transferred to defendant no.2 company as he had not performed as per expectations. Witness further stated that on 08.01.2019, an e-mail was received to the whole sales team regarding the transfer from defendant no.1 company to defendant no.2 company. Witness denied that his services were terminated by the company. He further stated that he himself resigned on 13.08.2019 which was accepted on 14.08.2019. Witness further denied CS No.593/2021 Page 6 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr that full and final payment was duly made to him on 16.08.2019. Witness stated that no payment had been made by the defendant company till date. The incentive was determined by defendant company on the basis of performance. Witness admitted that his performance each quarter determined the incentive amount he received for that quarter. Witness stated that he had not received incentives for any other quarters barring October 2018 to December 2019. Witness denied that he was eligible to get upto Rs.81,000/- per month salary based on his performance and not more then that. He further stated that he used to get variable incentives other then salary.
Witness was shown the document Ex.PW1/C and asked that he had consistently under performed and had not delivered on his promises to which witness replied that it was false. He further stated that documents showing his performance were already on record. Witness was asked what had happened during the exit procedure on 14.08.2019 and 16.08.2019 to which witness answered that on 14.08.2019 at about 05.30 pm he received the resignation acceptance mail. At 06.09 pm, he received an exit e-mail from the HR that by 06.30 pm he stood relieved and formalities had to be completed by 06.30 pm. On 16.08.2019, he came back to the office to return his laptop, ID Card and other things and he was promised that his full and final payment shall be made.
Witness stated that during exit procedure, he had signed some papers but he was not allowed to read them stating that he may not get his relieving letter and full and final payment if he did not sign the same and he was forced to sign the documents. Witness further stated that he had submitted his no due form upon exit from company and he even received an acceptance e-mail to this effect and said no due form was CS No.593/2021 Page 7 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr with the company.
Witness denied that he had misbehaved with the seniors, client and colleagues of defendant no.1 company or that he did not meet the targets given by defendant no.1 company.
14.No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff and plaintiff evidence was closed. Thereafter, matter was listed for defendant evidence.
15.Defendants examined only one witness in their defence DW1 namely Vimal Kumar Jha who stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff with the sole aim of harassing and extorting money from the defendant company. The plaintiff had been offered a job on his false promises but plaintiff could not deliver to the expectations of the company. He falsely represented that he could procure sales order as per target of the company but his claim was dishonest. He used to misbehave with seniors, colleagues and clients and also used to disobey the orders which led to loss of goodwill of the company. He relied upon the following documents :-
(1) Board of Resolution dated 15.02.2022, Ex.DW1/1. (2) Employee handbook, Ex.DW1/2.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for plaintiff, witness stated that he was working with defendant company since 2016 as Admn Manager. There were about 4-5 members/employee in the HR team. Witness stated that the defendant company relieved the plaintiff on 16.08.2019 after completion of all formalities and no notice was served to the plaintiff for relieving the services. Witness further stated that CS No.593/2021 Page 8 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr plaintiff asked to the company to relieve him and he was relieved with his consent thereafter.
Witness further stated that plaintiff was drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- approximately at the time of joining and thereafter it was around Rs.89,000/-. One month notice period was required to be served usually in the company when a person resigns but it can be done earlier also through mutual understanding.
Witness was shown document Ex.PW1/B wherein it was mentioned that either of the party could terminate the association by giving one month notice or on payment of one month salary in lieu. The witness answered stated that in case, the employee terminates, he had to pay one month salary to the company. Witness further stated that when an employee joins, he is given a handbook with terms of employment. On page no.18, this point was clear that if the employee resigned or was terminated, the company was not liable to pay him anything and instead could recover from him.
Witness further stated that he was not aware if any document had been filed in form of mail reflecting whether the plaintiff was served with the handbook. They used to pay quarterly incentives to the staff based on their performance. Witness stated that plaintiff was given incentive once, may be in the month of October to December 2018 approximately Rs.60,000/- and thereafter he might have been paid Rs.10,000/- as incentive. Witness denied that the defendant company was liable to pay one month salary on acceptance of resignation of the employee without asking the employee to serve the mandatory notice period of 30 days. He further stated that it was given depending upon the mutual understanding of the employee and the employer. The payment CS No.593/2021 Page 9 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr of one month salary or less was made depending upon the period served by the employee. One month notice period was usually served according to the terms of employment, unless agreed otherwise. The plaintiff had not achieved his targets. Witness was asked whether the management had issued e-mail mentioning that the plaintiff had achieved his targets to which witness replied that they usually send this e-mail to give motivation to the employees.
Witness denied that plaintiff had achieved more than the targets required by the defendant company. The plaintiff had served his resignation on 13.08.2019 and it was accepted on 14.08.2019. The witness could not tell whether the plaintiff had raised grievances in e- mails to the defendant company for full and final settlement of his dues. The dues of the plaintiff were settled on 16.08.2019 on relieving by the defendant company. Witness stated that no such document had been filed reflecting full and final settlement of dues. The conveyance was not part of the salary, however, it was paid separately. No salary arrears were due to the plaintiff. Witness denied that the plaintiff was not paid the arrears in salary, conveyance or salary for the period 01.08.2019 to 14.08.2019 etc. Witness further denied that the plaintiff was entitled to incentives in the sum of Rs.60,750/- for the period January to June 2019. He did not remember if the plaintiff had demanded his total dues of Rs.2,78,339/- alongwith interest through an e-mail dated 23.10.2019 to the defendant company. He could only state after checking the record if the defendant company had stated to reopen the case of the plaintiff for settlement of dues. He did not remember the contents of all the e-mails placed on record. Although, he had gone through all the e-mails. No whatsapp messages were sent by the plaintiff to Mr. Arjun Mittal, CS No.593/2021 Page 10 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr Director of the defendant company. Witness denied that plaintiff had requested through whatsapp messages dated 19.10.2019 and 29.09.2021.
Witness further stated in his cross examination that plaintiff was transferred from the defendant no.1 company to defendant no.2 company in the month of December 2018. Witness denied employee handbook was not binding upon the plaintiff as there was no signature upon it. He further denied that plaintiff never falsely represented that he could procure sales order as per targets of the company or that plaintiff was never poor in his performance. Witness further denied that plaintiff was transferred from defendant no.1 company to defendant no.2 company due to his consistent misbehaviour with senior colleagues and clients and because of his non performance in the defendant company or that plaintiff never disobeyed orders which led to the loss of goodwill of the defendant company. Witness denied that the plaintiff always achieved the targets as assured and promised by him and as served by the defendant company. Witness further stated that gift hamper was given to the plaintiff to enhance and encourage the plaintiff and they used to give it to every employee. Witness denied that the award was given only based on the performance of the employee and not to everyone.
Witness stated that whatever dues were there, same were settled and paid on 16.08.2019. Witness further stated in his cross examination that he was not aware if the plaintiff had sent reminder through e-mails for full and final settlement of dues. Witness denied that since the defendant company failed to pay/settle the dues of the plaintiff, hence, the present case was filed.
CS No.593/2021 Page 11 of 19Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr
16.Final arguments were addressed by counsel for both the parties. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of both the parties. After hearing the arguments and going through the documents placed on record and perusing the examination and cross examination of witnesses, the court has come to the following observations.
17.My Issue wise findings are as follows:
I shall be deciding the issue no.1 & 2 together as the same are interconnected, which are as under : -
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages against the defendant in the sum of Rs.3,52,393/-? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum pendentelite? OPP
i) The onus to prove the above two issues was upon the plaintiff.
It is submitted that the plaintiff was offered to join as Senior Manager (Sales) in the defendant company and the plaintiff had accepted the said offer and joined at a monthly salary of Rs.81,000/-. He was transferred to the sister concern of defendant no.1 on 08.01.2019 and was also provided sale incentives vide e-mail dated 14.01.2019 which is Ex.PW1/C. The salary of the plaintiff was also enhanced by way of an increment w.e.f 01.04.2019 and the plaintiff has annexed his salary slip showing his monthly salary as Rs.89,100/-. The plaintiff has also annexed an e-mail Ex.PW1/D as per which he was provided incentive in the quarter ending December 2018 at Rs.60,750/-. The plaintiff was further acknowledged due to his efforts and good work and was also awarded a gift hamper by the defendant company on 02.05.2019.
CS No.593/2021 Page 12 of 19Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr
ii) On 13.08.2019 the plaintiff intimated for relieving the services of the defendant company vide e-mail dated 13.08.2019 by serving one month notice which was duly accepted by the defendant company vide letter dated 16.08.2019. In that letter it was mentioned that the services of the plaintiff were terminated on 14.08.2019 and plaintiff had to complete relieving formalities by 06.30 pm. Plaintiff visited the office of defendant company on 16.08.2019 for completion of full and final formalities. Plaintiff was assured that his final compensation shall be duly transferred to his account by the defendant company.
iii) Plaintiff pursued his full and final settlement compensation vide e-mail dated 14.10.2019 but the defendant company failed to resolve the issue of the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested to provide the details of his full and final settlement but the same was not provided. Vide e- mail dated 11.10.2019 the plaintiff intimated that his compensation amount was Rs.45,071/-. He sent a reminder also to the defendant in this behalf on 16.10.2019 for his full and final settlement of claim. The plaintiff in an e-mail dated 14.10.2019 raised an objection that the full and final compensation amount did not take into account the annual appraisal of the plaintiff. Despite his reminder e-mail the defendant company did not provide proper information regarding the details of the total compensation payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded his salary of 14 days in the month of August amounting to Rs.40,239/-, conveyance and helper allowance of Rs.5,000/-, arrears with respect to salary for April, May, June and August amounting to Rs.28,350/-, salary for notice period amounting Rs.89,100/- and incentive for the quarter CS No.593/2021 Page 13 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr ending March 2019 and June 2019 amounting to Rs.1,21,500/-. Hence, the plaintiff demanded a total of Rs.2,84,189/- as his outstanding dues. The said e-mail was never replied by the defendants.
iv) Due to covid-19 pandemic the plaintiff could not pursue his claim. However, he again sent a reminder dated 25.08.2021 and the official of the company intimated him that the subject regarding the plaintiff had been closed as no response had been received from the plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter sent continues e-mail which were never replied to and thereafter plaintiff was left with no option but to file the present suit claiming Rs.3,52,393/- (Rs.284189/- + Rs.68204/- as interest).
v) The defendant in rebuttal has stated that the employee is bound by the terms of his employment and cannot show ignorance to the same as a ground of defence. Plaintiff was given an employee hand book which was Ex.PW1/2 and he was bound by the terms of the same. In fact, the appointment letter filed by the plaintiff itself clear mentions of the employee handbook and the fact that the plaintiff was provided with the same and was bound by its terms. The defendant submitted that it is inconceivable that plaintiff was unaware of the existence of such a handbook or it contents as it was a common document within the knowledge of all the employees. The offer letter Ex.PW1/A explicitly mentions that plaintiff was bound by the terms of employment set forth in the employee handbook upon acceptance of the offer.
vi) The plaintiff also consented to the terms of his employment CS No.593/2021 Page 14 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr which clearly included the stipulation that he was required to adhere to the terms set forth in the employee handbook by putting his signatures upon the acceptance letter. This goes to show that the plaintiff was aware of the handbook since the date of his joining and he had agreed to adhere to the terms set forth in the handbook and now he could not claim ignorance of its contents and seek compensation or monitory amount to which he was not entitled to. The defendant in its rebuttal also stated that vide its e-mail dated 18.10.2019, defendant had clarified that plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed by him as the incentives and arrears were only provided to the employees who were present in the system and in case any employee left before its disbursement, he/she was excluded from settlement. The defendant further rebutted that the transfer of the plaintiff was an internal shift and the plaintiff was not asked to sign any fresh terms of employment. He continued on the previous salary package and the transfer was also never objected to by the plaintiff. Both the defendant company are sister concerns and circulated the same employee handbook and all the employees were bound by the same.
The plaintiff was also bound by the terms of employment set out in the employee handbook (Ex.DW1/2) of the defendant company. The employee handbook (page 11) makes is abundantly clear that appraised amount or variable amount will not be disbursed to an employee who has resigned/terminated and that only "active" employees were entitled to the same. The relevant portion is reproduced as under :-
2. "An employee who has resigned or terminated, he/she will not be eligible for compensation revision for the specific year.
3. The appraised amount or variable amount will not be CS No.593/2021 Page 15 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr disbursed to an employee who has resigned/terminated or is serving his/her notice period. One must be an active employee in the system on the date of disbursement of the appraised amount or variable amount".
vii) The plaintiff is not entitled to recovering the arrears in the increment of salary for the year 2019 as he was not an active employee at the time of disbursement of the amount. The same had been communicated to the plaintiff vide e-mail dated 18.10.2019. The plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination dated 17.08.2023 that "I had signed some papers but I was not allowed to read them stating that I may not get my relieving letter and full and final payment if I don't sign the same".
viii) As far as the salary qua the notice period is concerned, the defendant company accepted the request of plaintiff for resignation with immediate effect vide e-mail dated 14.08.2019. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the notice period if the same is waived off by the company on the basis of the plaintiff's own request. The employee handbook (page 22 of Ex.DW1/2) clarifies that any employee who wishes an early release shall be required to pay out their notice period and not serve the same. The case of the plaintiff is devoid of logic in his claims that he is entitled to one month salary in lieu of the notice period when he did not serve the period out of his own volition. The plaintiff in his cross examination dated 17.08.2023 admitted to having resigned from his employment voluntarily on 13.08.2019. The plaintiff thus, having failed to serve his notice period on account of his own conduct cannot claim the salary for such a duration. In his cross examination CS No.593/2021 Page 16 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr dated 17.07.2023, the plaintiff has admitted to submit a no due from at the time of his exit procedure. The plaintiff cannot now approach this court after approximately two years from his resignation to claim money from the defendant company.
ix) As far as the incentives for the period of January 2019 to June 2019 are concerned, it is common knowledge that incentives are performance based rewards and an employee is not automatically entitled to the same. The plaintiff in his cross examination dated 17.08.2023 has himself confirmed that incentives are a subject component determined on basis of performance in each quarter. He has further confirmed that the evaluation for the incentives is limited to each quarter. The employee handbook (Ex.DW1/2) under the clause 'performance appraisals' makes it abundantly clear that employees who have resigned or have been terminated are not eligible for receiving the appraised amount or variable amount of that period since they are not 'active' employees at the time of disbursement. Hence, even if the plaintiff indeed exceed his targets, he is still not entitled to recover the variable amount i.e. incentives for the aforementioned quarter as he was not an active employee at the time of disbursement of the amount.
x) Hence, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he is entitled to decree of damages against the defendants in the sum of Rs.3,52,393/-. Since, no decree of damages is being passed in favour of the plaintiff, no question arises to grant any interest to the plaintiff. Accordingly, both the issues stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
CS No.593/2021 Page 17 of 19Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr
18.Now, I shall decide the issue no.3 which is as under :-
3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The plaintiff cannot probate and reprobate his case in the same breath. The plaintiff has made SISL defendant No.1 and has sought reliefs qua the defendant No.l as well. Furthermore, despite his claims that his ties to the defendant No.1 company had been severed consequent to his transfer, his own conduct then does not follow wherein he has sent his letter of resignation (Ex. PW1/I) to the defendant no.1. company and has undergone his exist formalities with the defendant no. 1 company as is self-admitted and evident from his own documents, he has received a relieving letter from the defendant no.1 company (Ex. PW1/J) and has further emailed officials from the defendant no.1 company only seeking revision of his dues and compensation.
The plaintiff has failed to place on record a single document which may show that he was also in correspondence with defendant no.2 company. It is therefore evident, from the plaintiff's own documents and conduct, that the terms of his employment were still governed by defendant no.1 company, and he was still in continued association with them. However, at the time of resignation he was an employee of defendant no.2. The plaintiff has made both defendant no.1 & 2 as party. There is no misjoinder or non joinder of necessary party in the opinion of the court and defendant has not been able to prove issue no.3 that there has been any misjoinder or non joinder of necessary party. Therefore, this issue stands in favour of the plaintiff and against the CS No.593/2021 Page 18 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr defendants.
19.Relief In view of the aforesaid discussion, suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
20.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 signedby PURVA PURVA SAREEN SAREEN Date:
2025.05.19 15:50:23 +0530 Announced in open court (Purva Sareen) On 14th May, 2025 District Judge-01, South, Saket District Courts, New Delhi CS No.593/2021 Page 19 of 19 Mohit Kapoor Vs M/s SISL Infotech Pvt Ltd & Anr