Delhi District Court
M/S Angelique International Limited vs Sh. Brijesh Kumar Shukla on 1 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS No: 1235/17
CNR No. DLSE030022802017
M/s Angelique International Limited
Having its registered office at
104107, Hemkunt Tower,
1st floor, 98 Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019 .....Plaintiff
versus
Sh. Brijesh Kumar Shukla
S/o Sh. Ram Bhuwan Shukla
R/o Village & Post office Tighra,
Badi Semariya, Sirmour,
Rewa, M.P. 486445. ....Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 01.11.2017
Date on which Judgment reserved : 29.03.2019
Date on which judgment pronounced : 01.04.2019
Decision : Partly decreed
SUIT FOR COMPENSATION FOR DEFAMATION, DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
EX PARTE J U D G M E N T
Averments of the Plaintiff
1.The plaintiff is engaged in the business of engineering, procurement and construction of development/infrastructure projects in SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 1/11 underdeveloped/developing countries, which is funded by Govt of India and other international bodies like UN, Worlds Bank, etc. On 18.04.2008 the plaintiff offered a job to the defendant as "Project Engineer". On 12.05.2008, defendant joined service of the plaintiff and the same day an appointment letter was issued to him which was duly accepted. During his course of employment, defendant worked on various projects of the plaintiff in India as well as other countries like Myanmar, Sierra Leon and Ethiopia.
1.1 On 28.12.2011 defendant submitted his resignation vide email sent from his personal ID to the plaintiff. Vide letter dated 04.01.2012 the said resignation was accepted by the plaintiff and defendant was relieved from the service with effect from 29.12.2011. The defendant thereafter joined employ ment under one "Techno Fab Engineering Limited". All dues pertaining to the defendant, for his service rendered till 29.12.2011 were paid by the plaintiff. On 22.10.2015, the defendant again approached the plaintiff for a fresh job, however this request was not responded to by the plaintiff.
1.2 The defendant then sent a legal notice dated 20.07.2017 to the plaintiff claiming outstanding dues for his service rendered to the latter. It is submitted by the plaintiff that thereafter calls were made by the defendant to it's various officers asking for compensation. On 18.01.2017, the plaintiff re ceived an email from the Indian Embassy at Ethiopia asking for a response to the complaint filed by the defendant with them. In his complaint, defendant SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 2/11 had sought recovery of an outstanding amount of Rs 4,75,00,000/ from the plaintiff for completion of plaintiff's project. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant's complaint to the Indian Embassy was defamatory in as much as it presented a wrong picture of the plaintiff by averring that it has not paid defendant's dues and that it misused the documents submitted by the defen dant. The said complaint hurt the credibility and reputation of the plaintiff for which a sum of Rs 2,50,000/ along with pendente lite and future interest @18% p.a. has been claimed from the defendant in this suit towards damages for his actions. Furthermore, the plaintiff also seeks a declaration to the effect that defendant does not have any pending arrears of salary and other service benefits against the plaintiff. An injunction has also been sought restraining the defendant from contacting the plaintiff or it's employees in future.
Averments of the Defendant
2. The written statement was filed in Hindi in this matter. Of the nu merous aspects raised in the written statement, only a few pertain to the instant suit. It is submitted by the defendant that he was given the work on contract and that there was not a single person in Directorial capacity to overlook his work. The amount shown in the ledger accounts (Mark C) was to be paid in US dollars and not in Indian Rupees. It is denied that defendant expected a salary of Rs 2.4 lakhs when he approached the plaintiff for the first time for a job. All the documents submitted by the plaintiff in support of their claim are SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 3/11 stated to be false. It is submitted that despite having completed the contract in Ethiopia the defendant was not paid any compensation.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and written statement was filed on his behalf.
3.1 Perusal of the case file shows that the defendant, barring one in stance, didn't appear in the Court thereafter and hence was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.08.2018.
Issues
4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 30.05.2018 :
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the plaintiff on account of defamation of the plaintiff done by the defendant on various occasions? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that defendant does not have any pending arrears of salary and other service benefits against the plaintiff? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any injunction restraining the defendant from contacting the plaintiff or it's employees in any manner? OPP (4) Cost.
SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 4/11 Plaintiffs Evidence
5. In it's exparte evidence, the plaintiff examined Sh. Parveen Sing hai, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff as PW1, who tendered his ex parte evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the follow ing documents:
1. PoA in favour of PW1 Ex. PW1/1.
2. Evaluation form dated 18.04.2008 Ex. PW1/2.
3. Letter of intent dated 18.04.2008 Ex. PW1/3.
4. Letter of appointment dated 12.05.2008 Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy of letter raising defendant's salary dated 21.04.2011 Mark - H.
6. Printout of resignation email dated 28.12.2011 Mark - A.
7. Acceptance of defendant's resignation vide letter dated 04.01.2012 Ex. PW1/6.
8. Copy of letter accepting defendant's resignation dated 04.01.2012 Mark - B.
9. Ledger statement of the defendant Mark - C.
10. Salary slips issued to the defendant Mark D (Colly).
11. Printout of email dated 22.10.2015 for fresh job Mark E. SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 5/11
12. Printout of email dated 18.01.2017 from the Indian Embassy Mark - F.
13. Printout of reply email dated 19.01.2017 Mark - G.
14. Copy of notice dated 20.07.2017 Mark I. 5.1 Plaintiff further examined summoned witness Sh. J.K. Sahu, HR with M/s Technofab Engineering as PW2, who relied upon the following doc uments
1. Photocopy of computer generated salary slip Mark PW2/A.
2. Application form dated 12.12.2011 Ex. PW2/1.
5.2 Plaintiff further examined Sh. Man Singh as PW3, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW3/A and relied upon following doc uments
1. Email dated 28.12.2011 Ex. PW3/1
2. Statement of account of defendant Ex. PW3/2
3. Salary slips issued to defendant Ex. PW3/3
4. Email dated 22.10.2015 Ex. PW3/4
5. Email dated 18.01.2017 Ex. PW3/5
6. Email dated 19.01.2017 Ex. PW3/6
7. Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/7 Upon request, plaintiff evidence closed and thereafter, exparte final arguments were heard.
SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 6/11 Issue Wise Findings and Appreciation of Evidence Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the plaintiff on account of defamation of the plaintiff done by the defendant on various occasions? OPP
6. It has been held in Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das, AIR 1918 Del. 69 F.B., that as there is no specific statute in India dealing with civil liability for defamation, the rule to apply is that of justice, equity and good conscience. Civil defamation can be of two types, libel or slander. It has been held in B. M. Thummaiah Vs. T. M. Rukmini & ors decided on 10.09.2012 by HMJ B. S. Patil, Karnataka High Court that defamation in the form of libel, (as has been averred by the plaintiff in the instant case), consists of the following three es sentials:
1. There must be a defamatory statement.
2. The defamatory statement must be understood by a reasonable person to be referring to the plaintiff.
3. There must be publication of the defamatory statement.
6.1 All the above mentioned essentials of tort of defamation are re quired to be proved by the plaintiff in a suit like the present one for recovery of damages for defamation. If even one of these essentials is not proved then the defamation cannot be said to have been done.
SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 7/11 6.2 The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant's complaint to the on line portal of Ministry of External Affairs which was later forwarded to the In dian Embassy at Ethiopia amounts to defamation as the same was made on false grounds and it has hit the reputation and credit of the plaintiff company.
What comes up for consideration is whether the complaint of an individual to a lawful authority for redressal of his grievance, qualifies as "publication" which is an essential ingredient to civil defamation. The right to redressal from a lawful authority is a basic right which must be safeguarded. In the instant case, the defendant seems to have done nothing more than to approach a government authority with his grievance. It would have been a different scenario if he had disclosed/shared his complaint with anyone from public at large. In that sce nario, it might have qualified as "publication". However it is not the case of the plaintiff that defamation arose out of any other act of the defendant but his writing a false complaint to the Ministry of External Affairs. Even otherwise, nothing has been placed on record to show that the said matter was communi cated to any other person. For afore mentioned reasons and since the right of redressal cannot be taken away from any individual, the Court is of the opinion that the instant case does not fall with in the domain of "publication". As has been already discussed, for the claim of defamation to be successful all the the three essentials must be proved lest the claim cannot subsist.
6.3 In view of the same, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that any defamation was caused to him and therefore, plaintiff is not found entitled to any compensation for the same.
SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 8/11 Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that defendant does not have any pending arrears of salary and other service benefits against the plaintiff? OPP
7. PW 1 in his evidence stated that the defendant served as a "project manager" for the plaintiff which is supported by the appointment letter dated 12.05.2008, (Ex. PW1/4) and that he resigned via email dated 28.12.2011, (Ex. PW3/4). A ledger statement, Ex. PW3/2, showing the details of payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant has been relied upon. Furthermore salary slips issued by the plaintiff to the defendant in the year 2011 have also been placed on record.
7.1 The evidence of all the three PWs stands unrebutted/unchallenged, as none of them was crossexamined by the defendant. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the unrebutted aforesaid testimonies recorded on oath in the Court. In view of the unchallenged testimonies, documents exhib ited/tendered in evidence.
It is thus declared that defendant does not have any pending ar rears of salary and other service benefits against the plaintiff.
SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 9/11 Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any injunction restraining the defendant from contacting the plaintiff or it's employees in any man ner? OPP
8. PW1 stated in his testimony that defendant had started making calls to officers of the plaintiff saying irrelevant things and raising arbitrary de mands of money from them. However the said vague testimony has not been supported by any other evidence on record. No document or correlating oral evidence has been produced to prove the aforesaid averment. The details as to which number was used to make these calls, what was the time period when the same were made, who all were the persons/officers of the plaintiff com pany who received these calls, etc have not been specified by PW1. The plain tiff could have easily produced testimony of such officers who were repeatedly called by the defendant but the same was not done. In such a scenario the said averment seems to be nothing but a bald and vague allegation, and does not in spire confidence.
8.1 PW1 stated that defendant again showed his willingness to work for the plaintiff via email dated 22.10.2015, which was not responded to by the latter. Printout of the said email, MarkE, was also placed on record to corroborate the same. However, the incidence of defendant writing an email SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 10/11 showing his interest for reemployment with the plaintiff can not in isolation be held to be any such act which warrants a legal action from this Court. The essence of any such order from the Court lies in restraining the defendant from harassing or violating any rights of plaintiff. In the instant suit, the plaintiff has neither been able to prove as to who exactly are the people who the defendant is contacting nor is he able to prove the harassment or violation of rights which is a resultant cause of the same. Hence for aforesaid reasons, no ground is made out to issue an injunction against the defendant enjoining him from contacting either the plaintiff or its employees in any manner.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4: Costs.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Relief:
9. In view of the findings given in issue no. 1 to 3 above, the plaintiff is found entitled to the declaration that the defendant does not have any pending arrears of salary and other service benefits against the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Originals, if any be returned as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Monika Saroha)
on 01.04.2019 Sr. Civil JudgecumRent Controller
SouthEast, District Courts,
Saket, New Delhi
SUIT No. 1235/17 M/s Angelique International Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar Shukla 11/11