Delhi District Court
Premier Shield Pvt Ltd vs Anil Soni on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI DISTRICT JUDGE-07
SOUTH EAST SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 7869/2016
CNR No.: DLSE01-000560-2013
PREMIER SHIELD PRIVATE LIMITED
Registered office:-
Premier House, C-146-147,
Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024.
Also At: A-282, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
.......... Plaintiff
Versus
ANIL SONI
House No. 703, Tower-B
Freedom Park Life, Sector-57,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122003.
Also At:-
Director
MS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Shri Sai Complex, Fourth Floor,
Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road, Kapashera,
New Delhi-110037.
......... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.15,00,000/-(RUPEES FIFTEEN LACS
ONLY)
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 1 of 20
Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni
Date of institution : 22.10.2013
Date when judgment reserved : 21.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- along-with future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. The case of plaintiff in brief as averred in plaint is as under:
3. It is stated that plaintiff is a company incorporated under provisions of The Companies Act, 1956. Plaint has been signed and verified by Mr. Pradeep N. Srivastava who is head of Human Resource Department of plaintiff and has been duly authorized by Board of Director of plaintiff company to institute present suit.
4. It is stated that plaintiff is a professional Total Security Solutions and Risk Management Enterprise. Plaintiff company has presence in India, South Asia, Middle East and East Africa and backed by network of 70 offices and 18000 trained persons. Operations of plaintiff are supported by 24x7 Control Room, proactive operations team and a dynamic corporate infrastructure.
5. It is stated that services provided by plaintiff and its group companies include Guarding Service, Executive Protection, Electronic Security Systems, Cash Management Solutions, Investigations, Brand CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 2 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni Protection, Information Security etc. Plaintiff specialises in providing above mentioned services and has earned a great deal of goodwill and respect in its field.
6. It is stated that defendant joined plaintiff as Chief Executive Officer on 04.06.2012 vide appointment letter dated 09.05.2012. As per the said appointment letter, defendant was to perform all functions entrusted to defendant as per various clauses of appointment letter. Defendant in addition to letter of appointment also entered into a confidentiality agreement dated 04.06.2012 and non disclosure and conflict of interest agreement dated 04.06.2012.
7. It is stated that the said employment was based on mutual duties and obligations to be performed by both plaintiff and defendant. Defendant was given charge of functioning of various departments of plaintiff company such as business development, system and internal control development, statutory compliances, information and data security and other functions as detailed in clause No. 2 of appointment letter dated 09.05.2012.
8. Defendant was paid emoluments of Rs. 5 lacs per month inclusive of salary and other variables such as House Rent Allowance, Telephone Bills reimbursement and a special allowance. In addition to these emoluments, defendant was also entitled to emoluments on business generated and performance based incentives. Defendant was also entitled to sum of Rs. 18 lacs as annual bonus.
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 3 of 20Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni
9. It is stated that plaintiff thereafter entrusted functioning and reposed total faith in defendant due to position held by defendant and nature of responsibilities undertaken by defendant as Chief Executive Officer. Being in position of such stature and importance, defendant was entitled to access to entire database of plaintiff company.
10. It is stated that on or about December-2012, it was evident from attitude of defendant that there was something else on his mind as he was not taking any interest in performing functions assigned to him as per clause 2 of his letter of appointment. Defendant stopped reporting to Board of Directors of plaintiff company which he was supposed to as per clause 1 of letter of appointment.
11. It is stated that defendant stopped performing his duties completely and thereafter did not report to Board of Directors of plaintiff company which he was duty bound to do. Defendant also abused facilities provided by plaintiff during course of his employment and exploited the same by using them for his personal gains which was expressly prohibited as per clause 5 of his letter of appointment.
12. It is stated that defendant breached code of conduct as provided by clause 7 of his letter of appointment by influencing other employees of plaintiff company and influenced them to not perform their duties which in turn affected functioning of plaintiff. It is stated that it was also clear breach of clause 12 of letter of appointment dated 09.05.2012. Number of employees left plaintiff company in a manner similar to CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 4 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni defendant.
13. It is stated that on 23.01.2013, defendant abruptly and with ill motive wrote an email to Mr. Pawanjit Singh Ahluwalia expressing his desire to resign from services of plaintiff without giving proper notice as per terms and conditions of appointment and coerced plaintiff to clear the dues on the same day itself. This conduct of defendant caused great degree of suspicion in mind of plaintiff.
14. It is stated that Board of Directors of plaintiff company were in utter disarray and refused to relieve defendant from services of plaintiff in such a rush. Defendant thereafter influenced one of his peers Mr. Raj Gaurav who was working as Director HR with plaintiff and coaxed him for sending email of acceptance of resignation of defendant and immediately left services of plaintiff. Defendant also coerced some of the departmental heads to hand him no dues clearance certificate and left plaintiff company even without notifying Board of Directors about his immediate departure from services.
15. It is stated that Mr. Raj Gaurav, the then Director HR accepted approximately eight resignations on that particular date even without intimating the management. It is stated that Mr. Raj Gaurav, Mr. Narendra Nath, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chopra and the defendant have joined services of M/s Support Services Pvt. Ltd. and shared important copyright material of plaintiff with the said company which fact further shows connivance of defendant and other employees in disrupting CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 5 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni functioning of plaintiff.
16. It is stated that unauthorized quitting of services by defendant was in contravention of terms of employment letter dated 09.05.2012. As per clause 13 of letter of appointment, either party was to give three months notice in writing before terminating contract or equivalent salary in lieu of such notice.
17. It is stated that defendant not only left services of plaintiff in contravention with letter of appointment dated 09.05.2012 but also did not comply with no dues requirement of plaintiff which was mandatory.
18. It is stated that being aggrieved by various breaches committed by defendant, plaintiff issued letter dated 15.03.2013 wherein it was notified that defendant has yet not cleared formality of No Dues Certificate which was a mandatory requirement of plaintiff company for any employee to resign from plaintiff company.
19. It is stated that plaintiff has already initiated proceedings against defendant and M/s Support Services Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of copyright of plaintiff as defendant has not obtained clearance from various departments including IT Department of plaintiff and defendant has in his possession copyright database of plaintiff company. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29.05.2013 passed restraint order in favour of plaintiff restraining defendants in CS (OS) 850/2013 from using copyright database of plaintiff.
20. It is stated that plaintiff was constrained to send legal notice CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 6 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni dated 24.07.2013 for recovery of Rs. 15 lacs in lieu of notice period which defendant failed to serve in terms of letter of appointment. Defendant in his reply dated 17.08.2013 denied all averments of plaintiff. Defendant went to the extent of leveling false and frivolous allegation of recovery of Rs. 11,49,710/- which as per plaintiff has been completely manipulated.
21. It is stated that defendant has failed to comply with clause 13 of appointment letter dated 09.05.2012. As per salary slip of defendant, in hand paid salary to defendant was Rs.4,22,800/- which included variables and rest of portion included settled other variables and other perks.
22. It is prayed to pass decree in sum of Rs.15 lacs in favour of plaintiff and against defendant along with future interest @18% per annum.
23. Summons were issued to defendant vide order dated 22.10.2013. Defendant was duly served on his both addresses but despite service, he did not appear before Court and was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 14.12.2013.
24. Defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside ex-parte order passed against him. Vide order dated 06.03.2014, ex-parte order against defendant was set-aside by my Ld. Predecessor.
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 7 of 20Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni
25. Defendant filed written statement wherein he stated that he has worked as Director in various companies. It is stated that defendant worked as Director in plaintiff company too but working of plaintiff company was unprofessional and unethical, therefore, defendant resigned from plaintiff company. It is stated that plaintiff is bent upon usurping hard earned money of defendant and for this purpose has filed present frivolous suit against defendant and it is rather defendant who has to take Rs. 11 lakhs from plaintiff which constitutes salary, notice period and other benefits.
26. Defendant took some preliminary objections. It is stated that suit filed by plaintiff is based on distorted facts in order to build up a false case. Plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit and resolution on basis of which present suit has been filed has no sanctity under law.
27. It is stated that plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from this Court. It is stated that relief claimed in present suit is barred under provisions of Specific Relief Act and no equity lies in favor of plaintiff and hence plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this Court.
28. On reply on merits, defendant stated that working of plaintiff was unethical, unprofessional and illegal. Defendant being a law abiding person denied being part of unethical and unprofessional practices adopted by plaintiff. Within period of 6 to 8 months of working, defendant could gauze that plaintiff is playing cheap politics with defendant and CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 8 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni wanted defendant to be part of it which defendant vehemently denied. It is stated that plaintiff has outstanding of Rs. 11,49,710/- plus interest against defendant. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff to harass defendant and to force defendant not to claim his legally due salary and other dues from plaintiff. Defendant has served plaintiff company for more than 8 months but when defendant found that plaintiff company is engaged in illegal, unprofessional and unethical activities, plaintiff could not tolerate the same and opposed and further asked Managing Director of plaintiff company namely Mr. Pawanjeet Ahluwalia not to go against law. Defendant resigned from services of plaintiff on 23.01.2013 which was later on revoked by him on promise being made by CMD of plaintiff company but defendant did not find any change and rather plaintiff started misusing position of defendant and pressurized him to do unlawful activities. Defendant finally decided to resign from the job and sent his resignation vide e-mail dated 08.02.2013. Defendant being a law abiding person knew his responsibilities and so he got no dues clearance signed from appropriate departments. Defendant deposited all IT assets and got no dues clearance as per HR statutory requirements which was acknowledged by Mr. Santosh Thakur on 15.02.2013 i.e. after one week of resignation. Defendant being a law abiding citizen could not work in plaintiff's organization as it was against moral and ethics. Defendant got his no dues clearance from all the departments and since then was waiting from plaintiff's side for his full and final settlement.
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 9 of 20Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni Defendant requested plaintiff number of times to clear his outstanding dues but to no avail.
29. It is stated that defendant has complied with terms and conditions of contract and non disclosure agreement. It is stated that it is defendant who has suffered while working with plaintiff and even after resigning. Plaintiff issued defamatory e-mail against defendant for which defendant has already initiated legal action which is pending before Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Plaintiff has clearance from Mr. Santosh Thakur regarding IT assets of plaintiff company but as plaintiff is not interested in clearing dues of defendant and wants to usurp hard earned money of defendant, that is why plaintiff has filed present false suit against defendant.
30. It is stated that plaintiff wanted defendant to be part of cheap politics being played by it to which defendant vehemently refused. Defendant issued legal notice for payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 11,49,710/- but instead of clearing dues of defendant, plaintiff has filed present frivolous suit against defendant. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff in order to harass defendant and to force defendant not to claim his dues from plaintiff.
31. It is denied that defendant influenced Mr. Raj Gaurav who was working as Director HR with plaintiff and coaxed him for sending e- mail of acceptance of resignation of defendant and immediately left services of plaintiff company. It is stated that Mr. Raj Gaurav was an CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 10 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni employee of plaintiff and acceptance was done after more than a week. Defendant left services of plaintiff company by properly serving resignation notice which was accepted by plaintiff. Defendant got no dues clearance as per HR statutory requirements which was acknowledged by Mr. Santosh Thakur on 15.02.2013 i.e. after one week of resignation.
32. It is denied that defendant breached any of terms of appointment letter and non disclosure agreement. It is stated that defendant joined company namely M3S Pvt Ltd after resigning from plaintiff company. Plaintiff wrote a derogatory e-mail to CAPSI Members which is governing agency of the field to which plaintiff and defendant belong. Defendant had worked in security sector for over 20 years and there are over 2500 members of CAPSI. The e-mail sent via CMD of plaintiff company has defamed defendant. Defendant has already initiated appropriate legal proceedings against plaintiff company.
33. It is stated that plaintiff is trying to mislead this Court and has narrated the facts which have no concern with present suit. Suit mentioned by plaintiff is subjudice before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated that defendant has served upon plaintiff legal notice dated 17.08.2013. It is denied that defendant owes sum of Rs. 15 lakhs along with future interest @ 18% p.a till realization.
34. It is prayed to dismiss suit filed by plaintiff with heavy costs in favour of defendant and against plaintiff.
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 11 of 20Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni
35. Replication to written statement of defendant was filed on behalf of plaintiff.
36. In replication, it is denied that plaintiff was having any unethical or unprofessional activities in the office. It is denied that plaintiff is bent upon usurping money of defendant and that defendant has to take amount of Rs. 11 lakhs from plaintiff company as stated in the written statement.
37. In reply to preliminary objections, it is stated that locus and cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. It is stated that board resolution filed by plaintiff is sufficient for filing and conducting proceedings of present suit. It is denied that resignation was validly accepted by plaintiff. It is stated that Mr. Raj Gaurav was having connivance with defendant. It is stated that defendant has admitted in his written statement that he resigned from immediate effect and did not serve notice period as a result thereof. It is denied that plaintiff has instituted false case against defendant. It is denied that cause of action is vague in any manner. Cause of action is stated in detail in the plaint filed by plaintiff. It is denied that suit filed by plaintiff is barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act.
38. On reply on merits, contents of corresponding paras of plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed. It is denied that plaintiff is engaged in any unethical practices and is doing anything unprofessional. It is denied that plaintiff company was ever engaged in the activities as CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 12 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni alleged by defendant. It is denied that defendant ever reported any illegal activity being done in office of plaintiff and reported the matter to MD of plaintiff company. It is denied that defendant got any clearance whatsoever from plaintiff company. It is denied that defendant ever got no dues clearance or that there are dues outstanding in favor of defendant. It is denied that defendant has complied with terms and conditions of his employment contact and that dues of defendant are clear in any manner.
39. It is stated that defendant is in possession of data base of plaintiff which has been acknowledged even by Hon'ble High Court. Defendant has been restrained from soliciting clients of plaintiff company in any manner. It is denied that defendant served plaintiff with full professional dedication. Defendant resigned from services of plaintiff as defendant had ulterior motives. It is denied that any cheap politics was ever played by plaintiff company or any of its officials. It is stated that plaintiff does not owe any amount to defendant. It is denied that plaintiff has indulged in frivolous litigation. It is stated that employees as mentioned in the plaint connived with defendant and joined MS Support Services in furtherance of their collusion.
40. Defendant has admitted to have sent e-mail dated 23.01.2013 for his resignation and further admitted to non serving of notice period. It is stated that Mr. Raj Gaurav accepted resignation of defendant in connivance with defendant which connivance is writ large CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 13 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni from documents filed by plaintiff in support of its case. It is admitted that not only defendant joined M3S Company but also made 8 other employees to join the said company. It is stated that information sent to CAPSI is irrelevant for the purposes of present suit.
41. It is prayed to decree suit filed by plaintiff in terms of prayers made in the plaint.
42. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 04.08.2014:-
1. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff as claimed in the suit?
2. Relief.
43. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined its AR Mr. Lavanjit Singh as PW-1 who exhibited his evidence affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A. In his deposition, PW1 relied upon and exhibited following documents:-
S.No. Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Board Resolution dated Ex.PW1/1
14.02.2023
2. Copy of fresh certificate of Already Mark-B
incorporation of plaintiff company
consequent to change of name
dated 13.03.2006
3. Appointment letter dated Already
09.05.2012 Ex.PW1/B (colly)
4. Confidentiality agreement dated Already
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 14 of 20
Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni
04.06.2012 Ex.PW1/C
5. Non-disclosure and conflict of Already
interest agreement dated Ex.PW1/D
04.06.2012
6. Copy of salary slip of defendant for Already Mark-C November 2012
7. No dues clearance form of Already defendant Ex.PW1/F
8. Copy of power point presentations Already Mark-Y of M/s. Support Services showing details of core team
9. Letter dated 15.03.2013 written on Already behalf of plaintiff to defendant Ex.PW1/G
10. Reply dated 23.03.2013 Already Ex.PW1/11
11. Copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW1/I 24.07.2013
12. Copy of reply dated 17.08.2013 to Already Mark Z legal notice dated 24.07.2013
44. PE was closed on statement of AR for plaintiff recorded before court on 28.03.2024.
45. No evidence was led by defendant despite grant of opportunities in this regard. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2025.
46. I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including written arguments filed on behalf of plaintiff.
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 15 of 20Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni
47. My issue-wise findings are as below:-
ISSUE No. 11. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff as claimed in the suit?
48. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff company. Plaintiff has claimed sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from defendant. Liability of defendant appears to be emanating from clause 13 of appointment letter of defendant dated 09.05.2012 (Ex.PW1/B colly). Defendant as such has not disputed his appointment letter Ex.PW1/B (colly). As per clause 13 of appointment letter of defendant, appointment of defendant may be terminated by giving three calender months notice or by giving three months emoluments in lieu of notice by either party.
49. Clause 13 of Ex.PW1/B (colly) provides one of the manners of termination of employment of defendant. Clause 13 covers with procedure of termination of employment of defendant in cases other than covered by clause 12 of appointment letter.
50. Clause 12 of Ex.PW1/B provides for termination of employment of defendant without notice for reason of commission of breach of terms and conditions as provided in appointment letter, for any kind of inappropriate behavior with colleagues, customers or other stake holders that can bring company into disrepute and for willful negligence of duty, persistent absence from duty without permission and permanent CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 16 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni disability to perform duties.
51. Defendant in his written statement has admitted that he resigned from services of plaintiff on 23.01.2013 which was later on revoked by him on promise made by CMD of plaintiff company but defendant found that his position in the plaintiff company was being misused and defendant was pressurized to do unlawful activities where after, defendant finally decided to resign and sent his resignation vide e- mail dated 08.02.2013. As per defendant, he deposited all IT assets and got no dues clearance as per HR statutory requirements which was acknowledged by one Mr. Santosh Thakur on 15.02.2013 i.e. after one week of resignation.
52. Defendant in cross examination of PW1 has asked him to which PW1 admitted that as a matter of record, resignation of the employee was to be submitted to Director, Human Resource. PW1 volunteered that it was to be produced before Board of Directors to accept his resignation. PW1 further stated that he cannot show any documents at this time to prove that it was Board of Directors who were empowered to accept and reject resignation of an employee.
53. PW1 in his cross examination stated that defendant joined plaintiff company on 04.06.2012 and remained in service upto 23.01.2013.
54. Plaintiff from stand taken by it in pleadings and evidence affidavit of PW1 appears to be aggrieved from the fact that defendant on CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 17 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni 23.01.2013 wrote e-mail to Mr. Pawanjeet Singh Ahluwalia expressing his desire to resign from services of plaintiff without giving proper notice as per terms and conditions of appointment and coerced officials of plaintiff company to clear dues on the same day itself.
55. No dues clearance form Ex.PW1/F shows that defendant has not obtained no dues clearance from all departments of plaintiff company. Further, even in no dues given by IT department and administration department, there is one article each which was not deposited by defendant meaning thereby that no dues clearance taken by defendant was not complete.
56. As per admitted stand of plaintiff and as asked from PW1 in his cross examination, defendant worked with plaintiff company till 23.01.2013. Email dated 08.02.2013 regarding acceptance of resignation of defendant has been filed on record by plaintiff itself as per which company accepted resignation of defendant on 08.02.2013. As this document has been filed by plaintiff itself, plaintiff cannot deny its sanctity. Defendant on the other hand has not been able to show that he finally sent his resignation letter again via email dated 08.02.2013. From this, it stands proved that defendant resigned on 23.01.2013.
57. Whether resignation of defendant was validly accepted as per established practice on 08.02.2013 is not material but what is material is that defendant resigned without giving three calender months notice or by giving three months emoluments in lieu of the notice for which present CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 18 of 20 Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni recovery suit has been filed by plaintiff.
58. Defendant has taken stand that amount of Rs. 11,49,710/- was outstanding towards salary and other incentives when defendant left services of plaintiff company but defendant has neither given any breakup for the same nor has been able to prove the same nor has brought on record that he filed separate suit to recover the alleged amount from plaintiff company. Hence, this amount cannot be allowed to be set off against amount claimed by plaintiff company from defendant.
59. Defendant has not been able to prove that he gave three months notice to plaintiff company before resigning in terms of clause 13 of his appointment letter nor he has been able to prove that he deposited emoluments of three months in lieu of notice period nor defendant has been able to prove any outstanding liability of plaintiff company towards defendant. In view of the same, I am of the view that plaintiff company has been able to discharge its burden qua this issue. However, plaintiff company has claimed amount of Rs. 15 lakh from defendant keeping in view his salary @ Rs. 5 lakh per month as per compensation structure appended with his appointment letter. Plaintiff has filed pay slip of defendant for November 2012 as per which gross salary of defendant was Rs. 4,22,000/- and plaintiff cannot back track from document filed by it. Salary slip of defendant is being taken into account for the purpose of calculating three months salary in lieu of notice period. Accordingly, I am of the view that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of amount of Rs.
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 19 of 20Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni 12,66,000/- (Rs. 4,22,000/- x 3) from defendant. This issue is accordingly decided in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. RELIEF
60. In vide my finding qua issue No. 1, it is ordered that plaintiff is entitled to amount of Rs. 12,66,000/- from defendant. No issue regarding interest was framed in present suit and hence, no interest on this amount is granted in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. Costs of suit are awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
Decree-Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SONU SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2025.06.05
17:45:04 +0530
Announced in open Court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
today on 30.05.2025 DJ-07, South East District,
Saket Courts/Delhi
CS No. 7869/16 Page No. 20 of 20
Premier Shield Private Limited Vs. Anil Soni