Delhi District Court
Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar Pandey on 27 March, 2025
THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH
CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No. DLND03-000986-2021
CS SCJ No. 706/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
COMPUTER JUNCTION PVT. LTD.
C-129, Naraina Industrial Area
Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 . . . Plaintiff
versus
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY
S/o Sh. B.N. Pandey
R/o H. No. A-52A/A, Block Gali No.2
Madhu Vihar, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi - 110091 . . .Defendant
Date of Institution : 30.06.2021
Date of Reserving Judgment : 22.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.03.2025
Decision : Dismissed
SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR RS. 2,83,200/- (RUPEES TWO
LAKHS EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED VAIBHAV
ONLY) AND COSTS PRATAP
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV PRATAP
SINGH
Date: 2025.03.27
12:44:44 +0530
CS SCJ No. 706/2021
Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey
Page No. 1 of 23
JUDGMENT
PLAINT
1. The present suit is filed against the Defendant, with the following prayers:
"(a) That Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order and decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for an amount of Rs. 2,83,200/- with interest at the rate of @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until payment/realization.
(b) Pleased to pass the order of injunction restraining the Defendant, acting contrary to the non competence clause and undertaking dated 8th December 2016, passing on the important date and information of the Plaintiff company with any third party or to the competitor.
(c) Such other and further reliefs in favour of the Plaintiff in the nature and circumstances of the case as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff in the Plaint are that the Plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956, with its registered office in Naraina, Delhi. The Board of Directors, in a resolution dated 15.06.2021, authorized Sh. Satish Patwal to institute this suit on behalf of the company.
3. That the Defendant joined the Plaintiff in 2003 as Sr. Field Executive and signed an amendment to his appointment letter on 08.12.2016, agreeing to non-compete and confidentiality clauses, including not soliciting clients, CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 2 of 23 employees, or engaging with competitors for a year after leaving.
4. That the Defendant's last salary was Rs. 23,610/- per month from 01.06.2017.
5. That on 17.10.2016, the Defendant signed a Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Policy undertaking, committing to not share any confidential data through various means, applicable retrospectively to past actions.
6. That on 08.12.2016, the Defendant received an amendment letter to his appointment, reinforcing the non-compete and confidentiality clauses, which he signed.
7. That the defendant resigned on 25.11.2017, providing 30 days' notice without giving any reason, completing his notice period by 26.12.2017.
8. That after resignation, the Defendant joined a competitor, shared confidential data, solicited the Plaintiff's clients, and was warned via an email from the Director Subir Bajaj on 20.01.2018.
9. That the Defendant filed false claims before labor authorities, pressured the Plaintiff for unentitled dues, and continued unethical practices by approaching the Plaintiff's clients with lower rates, causing the Plaintiff to lose CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 3 of 23 business.
10.That the Defendant's actions violate the non-compete and confidentiality clauses in his employment contract, and he was legally bound not to join a competitor for one year after resignation.
11.That the Defendant is still sharing confidential data with his new employer, causing ongoing financial loss to the Plaintiff, with clients being lured away by lower rates and shifting their business.
12.That the Defendant breached trust by disclosing important confidential information about the Plaintiff's operations to the competitor.
13.That the Defendant is liable to pay the equivalent of one year's salary, amounting to Rs. 283,200, for violating the employment contract.
14.That the Defendant had access to sensitive business information, including quotations and prospective orders, which the Plaintiff has built over years, with the value of this data running into crores.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
15.Defendant filed a written statement and took the stand that CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 4 of 23 the present suit is baseless, false, misleading, and an abuse of law, and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
16.That the suit lacks merit and is full of vague, unfounded allegations, aimed solely at pressuring the Defendant to cover the Plaintiff's failure to release the Defendant's legitimate dues as directed by competent authorities.
17.That the Defendant joined the Plaintiff company on 01.12.2003 and was awarded a "Certificate of Appreciation" on 18.06.2016 for 13 years of unblemished service, which contradicts the Plaintiff's current allegations, proving the suit to be self-contradictory and unjustified.
18.That the Plaintiff defaulted on its promise to settle the Defendant's dues after the Defendant served a 30-day notice from 25.11.2017, with the promise of a full and final settlement on 26.12.2017, which was never fulfilled.
19.That the Plaintiff's suit is an abuse of process, filed in response to orders from the Labour Court directing the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's dues, and it contains fabricated facts aimed at harassing the defendant.
20.That the Plaintiff withheld the Defendant's legitimate dues, causing the Defendant to seek legal remedies, and the suit is filed in abuse of the Plaintiff's dominant position.
CS SCJ No. 706/2021Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 5 of 23
21.That the Plaintiff ignored multiple notices from the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, including a Final Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2019, showing contempt for authority and the law and that the Plaintiff concealed the fact that the Labour Authority filed an application on 24.01.2020 for the recovery of the defendant's dues, including fines and compensation, further showing the Plaintiff's misconduct.
ISSUES
22.By order dated 08.09.2022, it was noted by the Learned Predecessor of this Court that the non-compete clause between the parties was valid only for a period of six months from the date of notice/relieving and that the prayer in this regard has become infructuous. The prayer
(b) in this regard was formally withdrawn by Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on 11.02.2025. Only the issue of recovery remains and the following issues were accordingly settled on 08.09.2022:
22.1.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 22.2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.
2,83,200/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realization? OPP.
22.3.Relief.
CS SCJ No. 706/2021Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 6 of 23 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23.The AR of Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 by tendering his evidence affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. Following documents have been relied on by the said witness:
Sl Exhibit/ Mark Documents
No.
1. Mark A (de- Copy of Incorporation
exhibited as Ex, Certificate
PW-1/1)
2. Ex. PW-1/2 Extract of Minutes of Meetings
3. Ex. PW-1/3 Board Resolution dated
15.06.2021
4. Mark B (de- Copy of Joining form dated
exhibited as Ex. 01.12.2003
PW-1/4)
5. Mark C (de- Copy of CTC appraisal letter
exhibited as Ex. dated 04.06.2016
PW-1/5)
6. Mark D (de- Copy of CTC appraisal letter
exhibited as Ex. dated 20.06.2017
PW-1/6)
7. Mark E (de- Copy of DLP policy
exhibited as Ex. undertaking signed by
PW-1/7) Defendant.
8. Mark F (de- Copy of amended appointment
exhibited as Ex. letter dated 08.12.2016
PW-1/8)
9. Mark G (de- Resignation letter dated
exhibited as Ex. 25.11.2017
PW-1/9)
10. Mark H (de- Copy of gratuity payment
exhibited as Ex. settlement letter dated
PW-1/10) 12.09.2019
11. Mark I (de- Copy of full and final
CS SCJ No. 706/2021
Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 7 of 23 exhibited as Ex. settlement dated 13.12.2017 PW-1/11)
12. Mark J (de- Copy of e-mail dated exhibited as Ex. 20.01.2018 PW-1/12)
13. Mark K (de- Certificate under Section 65B exhibited as Ex. IEA PW-1/13)
24.PW-1 was cross-examined by Defendant. No other witness was examined by the Plaintiff.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
25.The Defendant examined himself as DW-1 by tendering his evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. Following documents have been relied on by the said witness:
Sl Exhibit/ Mark Documents
No.
1. Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR) Copy of certificate of appreciation received
2. Ex. DW-1/2 Certified Copy of resignation letter dated 25.11.2017
3. Ex. DW-1/3 Copy of notice issued to Plaintiff company by Joint Labour Commissioner on the complaint dated 08.06.2018
4. Ex. DW-1/4 Copy of notice dated 04.08.2018 issued to Plaintiff company by Joint Labour Commissioner
5. Ex. DW-1/5 (colly.) Certified copy of order passed by office of Joint Labour Commissioner and order sheets CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 8 of 23
6. Ex. DW-1/6 Certified Copy of order dated 11.06.2019 of Joint Labour Commissioner
7. Ex. DW-1/7 (colly.) Complaint filed before the office of Labour Commissioner Hari Nagar
8. Ex. DW-1/8 (colly.) Copy of order sheet of case filed before Labour Commissioner along with written arguments.
9. Ex. DW-1/9 (colly.) Show cause notice dated 22.08.2019 and 29.01.2020
10. Ex. DW-1/10 Application u/s 21(5)(b) of (colly.) DSEA before Ld. CMM, PHC
11. Ex. DW-1/11 Letter dated 21.08.2018
12. Ex. DW-1/12 Appraisal letter dated 20.06.2017
13. Ex. DW-1/13 CTC appraisal letter issued by (colly.) plaintiff company on 06.07.2018 and 04.07.2016
14. Ex. DW-1/14 Letter dated 25.07.2016 issued by Plaintiff re-designating me as Senior Executive Legal
15. Ex. DW-1/15 Copy of salary slip and (OSR) identify card issued by Plaintiff company
16. Mark E (de- Copy of email dated exhibited as Ex. 20.04.2018 along with reply DW-1/16)
17. Ex. DW-1/17 Copy of identify card issued (OSR) by Plaintiff
18. Ex. DW-1/18 Copy of letter dated (colly.) 15.10.2020 and 22.07.2019
26.DW-1 was cross-examined by Plaintiff. No other witness was examined by the Defendant.
CS SCJ No. 706/2021Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 9 of 23 FINAL ARGUMENTS
27.Final arguments were then heard over multiple dates of hearings.
28.Plaintiff has argued that in view of only prayer (a) remaining, the case is simple and the Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract by the Defendant of the Appointment Letter Amendment dated 08.12.2026, Clause (f) whereof provided that in case of breach, employee shall be liable to pay one year salary to the company, or actual assessed loss, whichever is higher. The Plaintiff Company is claiming the salary.
29.Defendant, on the other hand, has argued that the suit is frivolous and unjustified, deserving dismissal under the principles set out in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1967) 2 SCR 378. It is nothing but a counterblast to the Defendant approaching the labour Court for his dues.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION? OPD.
30.It is the argument of the Defendant that the cause of action, if any, of the Plaintiff as per the plaint, arose on the CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 10 of 23 Defendant's resignation on 25.11.2017 or, at best, on 26.12.2017 when he took his full and final dues. It would mean that the limitation to file the present suit would expire on 25.11.2020 or 26.12.2020. The suit having been filed on 30.06.2021, that is beyond a period of three years, is barred by limitation.
31.In response, Plaintiff has placed reliance on the Order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 titled "In Re:
Cognizance for Extension Of Limitation". By paragraph 5(I) thereof, it was held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
32.Since the prescribed period to file the present suit was to expire during the period when limitation period was suspended in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it was filed while it was still suspended, the suit is not barred by limitation.
33.Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
CS SCJ No. 706/2021Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 11 of 23 ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES OF RS. 2,83,200/- ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE SUIT UNTIL REALIZATION? OPP.
VIOLATION OF NON-COMPETE CLAUSE
34.The Plaintiff's entire claim, both as originally presented and in its current form, is predicated upon the Defendant's departure from the Plaintiff's company, followed by the Defendant's purported employment with a competing entity, the unlawful disclosure of confidential information, and the solicitation of clients.
35.Upon a thorough examination of the plaint, it is not apparent how the Plaintiff may be entitled to the relief sought. The plaint appears to lack substantial detail, offering primarily general assertions without adequate factual support. It fails to meet the requisite standards for pleadings, within the meaning of CPC.
36.While I considered addressing the issue of the legality of non-compete agreements, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently established a foundation for this claim, thereby obviating the necessity for a determination on this matter.
37.Despite approaching a Court of law lamenting that the Defendant has joined a competitor thereby violating the CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 12 of 23 non-compete, the Plaintiff has failed to identify the specific competitor in question. The plaint does not name the competitor nor does it provide any detail regarding its identity or the nature of its competition with the Plaintiff. The evidence affidavit of PW-1, which is a re-iteration of the plaint, does not add anything either. Thus, the Plaintiff has not introduced any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant has joined a competitor or violated the non-compete agreement. It was only during cross-examination of PW-1, when specifically prompted by the Defendant's counsel, that the witness referred to IRIS Global Company as the entity with which the Defendant had allegedly joined, "according to him".
38.At this juncture, it remains unknown what IRIS Global Company does, where it is located, or even the nature of the Plaintiff's own business, as the plaint offers no averments in this regard. In light of the insufficiency of the pleadings and the evidence presented, I am unable to conclude that the Defendant has joined a competitor. In the absence of such a finding, the issue of whether the non- compete clause has been violated does not arise for determination.
BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY
39.Now coming to the claim of the Plaintiff that the CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 13 of 23 Defendant violated its confidentiality and caused losses in lakhs and crores of Rupees.
40.At hand is not a case of protection of trademarks, trade secrets even or of confidential information which is of a technical nature involving inventions and secret recipes or codes etc. To appreciate the grievance of the Plaintiff better, it is considered necessary to set out in extenso the portion of the plaint where the same has been averred:
"7) That defendant thereafter immediately went to join rival competitor of the plaintiff company and shared the classified and valuable data of the plaintiff company and Canvassed, solicited and made all endeavour to entice away from the company, and client or customer(s) of the company who at any time during employment of defendant were or are clients or customers of the company or were in the habit of dealing with the company. That the defendant was also warned vide email dated 20th January 2018 sent by the Director of plaintiff company namely Subir Bajaj.
8) That the defendant thereafter went on to file false cases against the plaintiff before labour authorities and pressurised to pay the dues which he was not entitled for same due to his unethical activities and violation of the undertaking dated 8th December 2016 signed by him. That defendant continues to do unethical activities of approaching the customers and contacts of the plaintiff with lesser and lower rates to entice away the customers of the plaintiff company and due to the same company is continuing incurring loss as some of clients of the plaintiff stopped giving business to plaintiff.
9) The conduct of Defendant is not only ethically wrong but also in blatant violation of contract of employment with and total violation of clause of NON COMPETE as stated above. That defendant was under legal obligation not to join the competitor of the plaintiff at least for one year from date of his resignation but he did the same and went on to violate the terms and condition of not sharing the data of the plaintiff.CS SCJ No. 706/2021
Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 14 of 23
10) That now it has been found by plaintiff that the defendant is still sharing confidential data & Information of plaintiff company with his current employer in total violation of clause of Confidentiality which the defendant need to observe even after resigning from the employment of plaintiff. That defendant have caused substantial amount of loss to the business of plaintiff which runs into lakhs of rupees and it is a continuing loss for the reasons as some of the clients of plaintiff have been approached with lower rates, and the defendant would approach more clients with similar approach, and thereby causes loss of margin and shifting of their business dealing with the company defendant have joined after resigning from plaintiff.
11) The Defendant even went further and committed breach of trust with the plaintiff company and disclosed important confidential information regarding the working, contacts and style of inside functioning of the plaintiff company to the rival organization.
12) That the defendant is liable to pay the amount equivalent to salary of one year in view of breach of the contract of employment. The amount of salary of one year comes to Rs. 283200/-, which the defendant was drawing when he resigned from the job of plaintiff while giving false reasons.
13) That the defendant had all the access to the information regarding quotations, prospective orders and other details of business of the plaintiff. That such data has been acquired by the plaintiff while being in the business transaction for several years, and this private property of the plaintiff is quantifiable into crores of rupees. An employee owes a duty of fidelity to his employer. He must not disclose to others or use to his own profit, trade secrets or confidential information which he learns during the course of his employment. Equity awards injunction against such erring servants, and common law awards damages."
(Emphasis by me)
41.Upon reviewing the plaint, it is evident that the Plaintiff has not provided specific details regarding the confidential information in question, apart from general assertions that the Defendant had access to the Plaintiff's "quotations, prospective orders, and other business details," and CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 15 of 23 allegedly communicated the Plaintiff's "working, contacts, and internal functioning" to a competing entity. The Plaintiff further claims that it began losing business as a result of the Defendant's alleged approach to clients, offering lower rates to those who were accustomed to dealing with the Plaintiff.
42.A trade secret or confidential information refers to any proprietary business information that holds intrinsic value, is not publicly disclosed, and is safeguarded through reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality. Such secrets provide companies with a strategic edge, enabling them to outperform competitors.
43.Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement requires member states to protect undisclosed information (which can include trade secrets) in accordance with Article 10 of the Paris Convention, 1967. However, the terms "trade secrets" and "know-how" are not explicitly mentioned in Article 39. Undisclosed information is defined under Article 1(2) of TRIPS as a category of intellectual property. The obligation under Article 39(1) is to protect undisclosed information from unfair competition, as per Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention. Unfair competition is defined as any act by a competitor exploiting another's industrial or commercial achievements without making substantial changes to the original.
CS SCJ No. 706/2021Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 16 of 23
44.Article 39(2) does not provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes undisclosed information. Instead, it outlines the conditions that must be met for information to qualify as undisclosed and eligible for protection. These conditions include that the information must:
44.1. Be secret (not generally known or easily accessible), 44.2. Possess commercial value due to its secrecy, and 44.3. Be subject to reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy, based on the circumstances.
45.In this case, the Court finds it difficult to comprehend how the "style of inside functioning" of the Plaintiff's business could be deemed commercially valuable to competitors.
The internal workings of an organization are generally visible to those within it and, as such, cannot be considered secret. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated any steps taken to safeguard such information, nor has it shown that this information holds any commercial value.
46.Additionally, the Plaintiff itself has classified the Defendant's role as that of a Recovery Executive, raising questions as to how the Defendant could have had access to sensitive or proprietary information of the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff's confidential information was so inadequately protected that even employees in non-sensitive roles, such CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 17 of 23 as the accounts department, had access to it, then the Plaintiff fails the common law test for maintaining confidentiality. In paragraph 13 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff itself relies on common law for damages. The evidence presented does not support the claim that the Defendant obtained or utilized any confidential information to the detriment of the Plaintiff.
47.The Plaintiff's assertion that its clients, who were accustomed to doing business with it, were enticed by the Defendant's lower-priced offers is unsupported by any credible evidence. Furthermore, it seems that the Plaintiff is merely expressing dissatisfaction with the principles of a competitive market.
48.The names and contact details of businesses offering particular services are generally available in the public domain. Any competitor with appropriate industry knowledge would have access to such information and would be free to market their services to these businesses, even if they are currently utilizing the Plaintiff's services. In this regard, the Plaintiff's claim of confidentiality lacks a sound legal basis.
49.Moreover, any employee of the Plaintiff who interacts with the Plaintiff's customers or clients would naturally have access to such customer information, including contact details. This raises the question of how such an employee, CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 18 of 23 upon moving to a competitor, could be restricted from offering the competitor's services to those clients or customers. Such a restriction could be seen as an unreasonable restraint of trade. In fact, business directories, which are readily accessible, allow for the identification of businesses within a particular industry, and the consumers of these services typically have many options to choose from.
50.The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 638, held that the plaintiff in that case, under the guise of confidentiality, was attempting to assert that once a customer of the plaintiff, always a customer of the plaintiff. The decision emphasized that it is ultimately the customer's choice to decide with which business to engage. Additionally, the Court ruled that the creation of a customer database and the subsequent claim of confidentiality therein did not justify the creation of a monopoly over such customers. The Court thus concluded that customer details do not constitute trade secrets or property.
51. Similar was the reasoning of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Mehar Karan Singh, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1243, while holding that information pertaining to 'strategic CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 19 of 23 business plans,' 'product mix,' 'square footage of construction,' 'capital expenditure,' or 'revenue budgets' could not be regarded as confidential, as such information would be known to competitors in the industry
52.In light of the above precedents and the clear insufficiency of the Plaintiff's claims, it is evident that the Plaintiff has no legal basis for its allegations. This issue is thus decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
REVENGE LITIGATION AND COSTS
53.Defendant has prayed in the WS that exemplary costs be imposed on the Plaintiff as the Defendant has been unduly harassed.
54.It is noted that even during the final arguments, when the legal position was becoming clearer, the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to consider whether it wished to resolve the matter amicably and reach a settlement with the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff declined this offer, expressing concerns that such a settlement could set an unfavorable precedent for other employees. While this position is regrettable, it lends weight to the Defendant's assertion that the present suit is motivated more by a desire for retribution than by any legitimate legal claim. The Defendant contends that this suit was filed as an act of vengeance following the Defendant's successful pursuit of CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 20 of 23 dues through the Labour Court. The Plaintiff's filing of this baseless suit appears to be an attempt to "teach a lesson" to the Defendant, who, according to the Plaintiff's own admissions, was earning a modest salary of approximately twenty three thousand rupees per month. This is not a case involving an individual of significant corporate stature, such as the CEO of Coca-Cola seeking to join Pepsi as its CEO. Given the Defendant's relatively low compensation, it is difficult to comprehend what substantial commercial secrets could have been in the Defendant's possession, particularly when the Plaintiff itself has valued such secrets as being worth "crores of Rupees."
55.In somewhat similar circumstances, on this aspect, I held in Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kumar Srivastava1 as follows:
"61. It appears that this case is one of personal vendetta, with the Plaintiff seeking to exact retribution for the Defendant's departure from its employment. The Plaintiff acting like a jilted lover cannot be countenanced by this Court. It is learnt from the bar during final arguments that the Plaintiff company is pursuing about ten similar litigations against former employees. This Court then wonders as to why a Company, instead of focussing on its high attrition rate and the causes therefor, would choose to focus on teaching lessons to former employees using Courts of law. The answer is not far to seek. It is luxury litigation for a company with a panel of lawyers and a litigation budget to set the law in motion against an individual who was made to suffer the judicial process for a decade at great personal expense and not to forget the anxiety cost of the proverbial "taareekh pe taareekh"
regime we have come to know and accept.
62. It would be injustice if the Defendant is not compensated for the same. Needlessly drawing a person into litigation has to be dealt with a heavy hand, as has also been observed by the 1 Judgment dated 22.03.2025 [CNR No. DLND030025712019] CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 21 of 23 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Charu Kishor Mehta vs. Prakash Patel and Ors., MANU/SC/1044/2022, wherein cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed on the wrongdoer who drew another into litigation without just cause. In Kusum Kumria and Ors. vs. Pharma Venture (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/DE/3144/2015, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasised the need to impose realistic costs while noting that the inherent powers of a Civil Court to impose costs are not restricted by Sections 35, 35-A and 35-B of the CPC."
56. It is no different in this case except perhaps it is more egregious as the Defendant herein is a person who made a pittance of a salary and was harangued by a corporation clocking in approximately Rs.55 Crores in a year, as per its own testimony. They first made him run pillar to post for taking his rightful dues through the Labour Court and then when he succeeded against them, they ensured that he exhausts whatever he received and more by embroiling him in this litigation which has gone on for 5 years. This cannot be allowed and the Defendant must be compensated for the better part of the past decade that he has spent feuding with the Plaintiff. Though this Court is sanguine in its belief that the imposition of exemplary costs may serve as a deterrent for the Plaintiff from indulging in litigation of like nature in the future, even if costs equivalent to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court were imposed, it would still merely be a rounding error for the Plaintiff, whose fortunes and coffers are noted above. However, let us hope.
CONCLUSION CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 22 of 23
57.In view of the above discussion, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the Defendant within one month from today.
58.Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
59.File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance, as per rules.
Pronounced by me in the Open Court on 27.03.2025.
VAIBHAV Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH Date: 2025.03.27 SINGH 12:44:59 +0530 (VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH) Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts New Delhi District, Delhi CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 23 of 23