Delhi District Court
Vipul Jain vs Vikas Goel And Anr. on 22 March, 2014
VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL: CJ04 (SOUTH):
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CS No. 28/2013
1. Vikas Goel,
Director of M/s SMB Solutions Corporate
Services Private Ltd. Having its office at:
B1, LGF, Geetanjali Enclave,
New Delhi - 110017
2. M/s SMB Solutions Corporate
Services Private Ltd. Having its office at:
B1, LGF, Geetanjali Enclave,
New Delhi - 110017
... Counter claimants/Defendants
Versus
Vipul Jain S/o Sh. C. K. Jain,
R/o: J55, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi ....Respondent /Plaintiff
Date of Institution : 21.08.2012
Date of Reserving Judgment : 22.03.2014
Date of Decision : 22.03.2014
J U D G M E N T
(on suit/counter claim for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/)
1. This suit was filed by the counter claimants for seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/ against the respondent.
CS No. 28/2013 Page 1 of 8VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
2. Briefly stated, case of the counter claimants is that respondent joined the services of the counter claimants as Finance Manager on 14.03.2011 at a monthly salary of Rs. 40,500/ in accordance with terms and conditions contained in appointment letter dated 07.03.2011. That respondent was initially appointed on probation period of 3 months, subject to further extension or reduction of the said probation period on the basis of his performance. That respondent was directed to perform his duties in the office of M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd and was further directed to comply with rules and regulations of M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s SBM Solutions Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. That respondent miserably failed to comply with the said guidelines specially with regard to attendance rules. That his performance was also not satisfactory. That upon receiving complaints from M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd., respondent was given verbal counseling during the months of June, July, November and December 2011 with directions to improve his standard and conduct. That respondent also committed an act of grave misconduct by obtaining data and information pertaining to counter claimants in an unauthorized manner and that respondent was reprimanded for the same. That respondent thereafter accepted his responsibility and apologized for the same. That counter claimants never confirmed the services of the respondent due to non satisfactory performance. That respondent was paid an amount of Rs.27,000/ as retention bonus upon CS No. 28/2013 Page 2 of 8 VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
completion of six months of his service with the hope that this will improve the standard of his performance. That since the respondent failed to improve his performance, his services were terminated in accordance with terms and conditions of his appointment. That annual contract between the counter claimants and M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. was not renewed on account of misconduct of the respondent. That counter claimants have, thus, suffered huge financial loss. That counter claimants have also suffered loss of reputation and credibility due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct of the respondent. Hence, the present suit/counter claim for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/ as compensation for financial losses and loss of image and reputation.
3. Upon service of summons of the present suit, respondent appeared and filed his written statement (WS) denying the allegations as contained in the counter claim. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the present counter claim has only been filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the respondent against the counter claimants. That the monthly salary of the respondent was Rs.45,000/ and not Rs.40,500/. That services of the respondent were confirmed after he completed the probation period of three months. That respondent has never given any chance for the counter claimants or M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. to have any sort of complaint and that he performed his services CS No. 28/2013 Page 3 of 8 VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
as per their satisfaction. That respondent never obtained any data/information of the counter claimants. That he, however, wrote mails dated 02.11.2011, 08.11.2011 etc. to HR Head for getting his salary slip and thus, on 05.12.2011 one employee of the counter claimants Mr. Nitin provided the said salary slip to the respondent. That respondent never tendered any apology but took responsibility for the entire incident by way of mail dated 05.12.2011 to maintain peace and good relations. The counter claimants had paid retention bonus to the respondent as he was performing his duties diligently. That contract between the counter claimants and M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. was not renewed as M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. had absorbed the services of an ex employee of the counter claimants namely Mr. Rajat Saha. That counter claimants are not entitled to recover any amount from the respondent. Hence, the present suit/counter claim be dismissed.
4. Counter claimants filed replication to the WS of the respondent denying the preliminary objections and other averments as contained in the WS. Averments as contained in the counter claim were once again reiterated by way of the replication.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 18.05.2013 :
1. Whether the counter claimants are entitled to recovery of CS No. 28/2013 Page 4 of 8 VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ as compensation against the respondent? OPC
2. Whether the present counter claim is filed to harass the respondent and the same is counter blast to the main suit of the respondent? OPR
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, counter claimants examined counter claimant no.1 as CW1. Respondent requested that cross examination of CW1 conducted in main case bearing no.20/2013 be adopted as his cross examination in this case also, which request was allowed. Thereafter, counter claimant evidence was closed. Respondent also adopted his affidavit filed in CS no.20/2013 as his evidence in the present counter claim. Cross examination of respondent Vipul Jain conducted in CS no.20/2013 was adopted as his cross examination in the present counter claim by the counter claimants.
7. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the counter claimants are entitled to recovery of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ as compensation against the respondent? OPC
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimants. Ld. Counsel for the counter claimants has argued CS No. 28/2013 Page 5 of 8 VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
that respondent was responsible for termination and non renewal of contract of defendant no.2 with M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. However, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in this regard. In fact, CW1 Vikas Goel has admitted in his cross examination that there is no documentary evidence to show that plaintiff had not performed satisfactorily at M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Also, admittedly there is not even an iota of evidence regarding the alleged complaints made by M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. against the plaintiff. There isno communication received from M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that they ended their contract with the counter claimants on account of misconduct of the respondent. Further, CW1 has admitted in his cross examination that only oral warnings were given to the respondent regarding the alleged complaints. Also, counter claimants have not examined any witness from M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. to substantiate their allegations against the plaintiff. In these circumstances, it appears highly unlikely that contract of the counter claimants with M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. was terminated on account of the misconduct and substandard performance of the respondent.
9. Ld. Counsel for the counter claimants has further argued that respondent had indulged in unauthorized data theft. However, again the allegations regarding the said data CS No. 28/2013 Page 6 of 8 VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
theft are absolutely vague and without any proof whatsoever. Counter claimants have failed to mention as to what kind of data was stolen by the respondent and on or around which dates. It must also be mentioned here that counter claimants have submitted that respondent had tendered a written apology regarding the said data theft. However, the said written apology containing the admission of the respondent regarding the alleged data theft has not been placed on record of the present case by the counter claimants for reasons best known to them. Ld. Counsel for the counter claimants has argued that as per email dated 05.12.2011 (Ex.PW1/5), respondent had admitted that he had stolen data. However, I do not find any merit in this argument. Ex.PW1/6 is an email which is not accompanied by certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and hence, cannot be read into evidence. It must also be noted here that counter claimants had denied the said email during conduction of admission/denial of documents. Hence, they now cannot rely upon the same. However, since reference to the same has been made by the counter claimants, I deem it appropriate to mention here that the said email Ex.PW1/6 is only regarding salary slips and reimbursement slips taken by the respondent concerning himself. The same cannot be regarded as an incident of data theft by any stretch of imagination. There is no proof regarding counter claimants suffering any financial loss or loss of credibility due to the acts of the respondent. Thus, issue no.1 is decided against the counter claimants and CS No. 28/2013 Page 7 of 8 VIPUL JAIN VS VIKAS GOEL AND ANR.
in favour of the respondent.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the present counter claim is filed to harass the respondent and the same is counter blast to the main suit of the respondent? OPR
10. The onus to prove this issue was upon the respondent. However, no evidence has been led in proof thereof. Merely because counter claimants have failed to prove their case, it cannot be said that the present case was filed to harass the respondent. Hence, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the counter claimants and against the respondent.
Relief:
11. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issues, suit of the counter claimants is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 22.03.2014 (Rajat Goyal) CJ04 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/22.03.2014 CS No. 28/2013 Page 8 of 8