Delhi District Court
Ravi Bishnoi vs Fox Mandal & Co on 20 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS NO. 15989/2016
1. Ravi Bishnoi
C98B, Sector 44,
Noida,
Uttar Pradesh - 201303
2. SRGR Law Offices,
Through its Partner, Mr. Ravi Bishnoi,
Having its registered office at
BH499 East, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi - 110 088.
Also at:
A3, 3rd Floor Sector 4,
Noida - 201301 (UP)
...............Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Fox Mandal & Co.
Through its Managing Partner/Partners,
18 Kotla Lane, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi - 110 002
Also at
A9, Sector9,
Noida - 201301
2. Mr. Sombrata Mandal - Managing Partner,
Fox Mandal & Co.
18 Kotla Lane, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi 110 002
Also at :
A9, Sector 9,
Noida - 201301
CS No.15989/16
Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 1 of 26
3. Mr. Amiya K. Ghose,
No. 19B, Block "K" Saket,
New Delhi - 110 017
4. Mrs. Sangeeta Mandal - Partners
Fox Mandal & Co.
18 Kotla Lane, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi - 110 002
Also at
A9, Sector9,
Noida - 201301
5. Mr. Bijoli Banerjee
EA118, SFS Flats,
Maya Enclave, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 064
6. Mrs. Mamta Tiwari,
C99, Sector - 40,
Noida
7. Mr. Indranil Ghosh
C617, Sushant Lok - I,
Gurgaon, Haryana
8. Mr. Manish Bhatnagar
B4/1501, Safdarjang Enclave,
New Delhi
9. Mr. Dinabandhu Mandal - Partner
Fox Mangal
12, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata - 700 001
Also at:
No. 7A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700 027.
............Defendants
CS No.15989/16
Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 2 of 26
Date of institution of the suit : 06.04.2013
Date on which order was reserved : 04.12.2021
Date of decision : 20.12.2021
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 19,65,212/
JUDGEMENT
1. The nature of suit is seeking recovery. Facts in brief are that plaintiff No.1, is a lawyer duly registered with Bar Council of Delhi and is practicing since, 1995. Plaintiff No. 2 is a registered partnership firm and plaintiff No.1 is a partner of it.
2. Defendant No.1 is a registered law firm being run as a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Fox Mandal & Co. Solicitors & Advocates. Defendant Nos.2 to 9 being the partners of defendant No.1 are jointly and severally liable for all the acts of defendant No. 1.
3. On 8th of December, 2009 defendant No. 1, through defendant No. 2 being its Managing Partner entered into an Agreement with plaintiff No. 1, namely the Consulting Agreement. The said agreement was divided into two parts. The first consists of "OUTSTANDING DUES AND THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE CONSULTANT" pertains to crystallized amounts admittedly due and payable in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 for the sum of Rs.90,43,945/. The second part pertains to "SCOPE OFSERVICES FOR THE PROJECT".
CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 3 of 26The present suit is related to the services rendered and invoices raised in pursuance to the second part of the Consulting Agreement.
4. It is an admitted liabilities in the first part of the Consulting Agreement i.e. the sum of Rs.90,43,945/, the defendants made some payments, and thereafter defaulted in making the payments. Despite assurance for payment of the said amount defendant did not make good their admitted liabilities for which a separate suit was instituted.
5. The Second part of the consulting agreement, defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff No. 1 to engage his services for assisting defendant no. 1 with legal services related to the Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. Thermal Power Project in the state of Andhra Pradesh, defined as the "project" in the Consulting Agreement. Plaintiff no. 1 agreed to offer his services, subject to terms and conditions set out in the Consulting Agreement. In pursuance of the said agreement, plaintiff no. 1 began to render services with respect to the Project and raised invoices for the same. It is stated that plaintiff raised 8 invoices, however, only 3 invoices were paid by the defendants.
6. Plaintiff No. 1 rendered services as per the terms of the CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 4 of 26 agreement, the defendant did not make the payment as per the Agreement between the parties. Plaintiff no. 1 tried to resolve the issue in the first instance with the defendants but in vain. Plaintiff also sent various reminders on various occasions for clearance of the outstanding dues but of no avail hence plaintiff issued legal notice dated 19.01.2013 to the defendants seeking recovery of the unpaid invoices for an amount of Rs.13,12,294.25 along with interest thereon at 18% for the due date of each invoice till the date of actual payment. However, neither did the defendants reply to the said notice nor any payment was made. Hence, the present suit is preferred for an amount of Rs.19,65,121/ being payable till 15.03.2013.
7. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, wherein it is stated that defendant no. 1 is a full service law firm specializing both in litigation as well as corporate law. It is alleged that plaintiff No.1 approached defendant No. 2 representing that he had more than 1 years of experience as an advocate specializing in the field of Corporate Law. Defendant No. 2 interviewed the plaintiff and discussed the modalities of his joining, it was conveyed that he would be inducted as a retainer in the firm and after apprising the plaintiff all the necessary details he joined defendant No. 1 in the month of April, 2006. During the passage of time, defendant No. 2 inducted the plaintiff No.1 as partner in the Fox Mandal & CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 5 of 26 Partners and a partnership deed of the firm was amended on 19.04.2007. In light of the said partnership deed, plaintiff no. 1 was barred from soliciting the clients of the firm and in the event of violation the other partners were entitled to withhold his payments.
8. It is stated that from January, 2007 onwards, defendant No. 2 started to entrust the work of high profile clients of defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff No. 1 and constituted a team comprising Senior Associates and Associates to assist him in executing the work. It is stated that one such prestigious client was the "Hinduja Group" who engaged defendant no.1, in the year 2007 for providing legal service for setting up of a power plant in Andra Pradesh. Plaintiff No. 1 was made in charge of the said assignment which called for a dedicated team consisting of Senior Associates and Associates. Defendant No. 2 assigned two Senior Associates to the said team. Plaintiff No. 1 with malafide intent started to sideline the above named Associates working with him for the "Hinduja Project" and eventually ensured and/or created circumstances that they were made to leave the team. Defendant No.2, enquired from the plaintiff about the said development and plaintiff No. 1 informed that the said associate were not doing their optimum for the project.
9. It was learnt by defendant No. 2 that it was only a ploy on the CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 6 of 26 part of plaintiff no. 1 to become the sole control point to the client in order to keep everything under his sole control without the involvement of anyone else. Defendant No.2 again reconstituted a team, plaintiff No.1 excluded them too from dealing with the client directly. Thus, towards the end of the year 2009, the said project reached the stage of financial closing and as agreed with the client and defendant No. 2 asked plaintiff no. 1 to start preparing invoices. Plaintiff No. 1 kept dilly dallying the preparation of the invoices on one pretext or another.
10. Defendant No. 2 vide SMS dated 30.11.2009, enquired plaintiff No.1 about the work done by him in respect of the Hinduja Project as also about raising of invoices. However, Plaintiff No. 1 sent his resignation and threatened that he will no longer be available for the Hinduja Project unless defendant No. 2 enters into a Consulting Agreement on such terms and conditions as would be dictated by the plaintiff, which had serious ramifications in terms of causeing irreparable harm to the defendant No. 2 Firm's reputation and standing.
11. The project entrusted to plaintiff No. 1 was at a critical stage and since plaintiff No. 1 had sidelined other associates who were involved in the project, it was not feasible for defendant no. 1 to entrust the work to any other person. Since, plaintiff CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 7 of 26 No. 1 was the only person who knew about the quantum of work done for the client as also the details about the billing, defendant no. 2 had no option but the agree to the terms and conditions laid down by plaintiff No. 1 to safeguard the rights and interest of defendant No. 1. It was in this background that the Consulting Agreement dated 08.12.2009 was entered into between the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 2. It is contended that the said agreement is vitiated on account of fraud and coercion and has no force in the eyes of law and cannot be read in isolation without taking into consideration the attendant facts and circumstances. The said agreement was one sided and is not enforceable/actionable in law. The plaintiff No. 1 not only violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement dated 08.12.2009 but also acted contrary to the Partnership Deed dated 19.04.2007.
12. It is submitted that consulting agreement dated 08.12.2009 was entered into between the parties on assurance given on behalf of the plaintiff to raise an invoice of Rs. 4 Crores upon Hinduja Group within a month of entering the same. However, plaintiff No. 1 utterly failed and neglected to do the same within the agreed period of one month. It is further submitted that it was only after much follow up by defendant No. 2, plaintiff No. 1 vide his email dated 25.02.2010 i.e. after about 2 to 3 months of execution of the said agreement, sent invoices of Hinduja CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 8 of 26 Group for a sum of Rs. 1.65 Crore only, which did not commensurate to the work carried out by defendant no. 1 for more than two years. Later on defendant no. 2 after much difficulty could prepare a proper invoice by taking into account the work done in respect of the project which came to around Rs. 4 Crores, due which defendant No.1 was prevented from suffering huge loss.
13. It is stated that defendant No. 2 came to know that plaintiff along with three other individuals associated with defendant no. 1 namely Sh. Saroj Jha, Sh Rajan Gupta and Sh. Gaurav Bhatia had set up a law firm under the name and style of "SRGR Associates" in March - April, 2010. In flagrant violation of clause 13 of the partnership deed dated 19.04.2007, plaintiff No. 1 vide his email dated 04.03.2010 approached one of the existing clients of defendant No. 1 and openly solicited work for its law firm "SRGR Associates". Thus, plaintiff is liable for the damage caused to the Firm by his acts of omission and commission and the defendant reserve their right to enforce the same.
14. Plaintiff hatched a criminal conspiracy by cheating defendant no. 1 firm, stealing vital proprietary documents, computer data, vital documents, files, CDs, legal opinions etc. of defendant no. 1 and misappropriating and converting to their CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 9 of 26 own use, causing huge loss to the defendants. An FIR was also registered on 14.12.2011 against the partners of SRGR Law Offices for the offence under Section 419/420/406/408/ 464/468/471 IPC and 65/66 IT Act at Sector 20, PS Noida.
15. It was an internal management policy of defendant No. 1 that remuneration/compensation would depend on the realization of the invoices raised by him. Notwithstaning the same, plaintiff No. 1 miserably failed to cause the realization of the outstanding invoices and as on date a sum of Rs. 61,17,911/ is still to be realized/recovered for various clients handled by plaintiff No. 1 since January, 2007 and plaintiff No. 1 has to make good the said amount.
16. It is stated that defendant No. 1 had followed upon with various clients handled by plaintiff no. 1 for realization of the said invoices, the said client have not made payment on the ground that they have made payment to plaintiff No. 1/the law firm SRGR Law Offices. Hence, it is preposterous on the part of plaintiff no. 1 to claim any amount, on the contrary defendant No.1 had counter claim of at least Rs.61,17,911/ with interest as against plaintiff No.1.
17. During the month of August, 2010, defendant No.2 had meeting with plaintiff wherein all the issues were discussed and CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 10 of 26 parties arrived at an agreement that defendant No. 2 was required to make a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/ towards full and final settlement of dues of plaintiff except further liability of the plaintiff towards defendant no. 2. It was further agreed that after receipt of the said amount the Consulting agreement dated 08.12.2009 stands superseded. Defendant No. 1 made the said payment on 06.09.2010 and thus paid all the dues of the plaintiff.
18. In their WS, certain preliminary objections were taken that the suit is not maintainable as per the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, liable to be dismissed under Order I Rule 9 CPC, not maintainable under the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and that the suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In rest of the written statement, averments made by plaintiff in plaint have been categorically denied parawise and a prayer is made to dismiss the suit.
19. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 4, certain preliminary objections were raised that though defendant no. 4 was a partner with defendant No. 1, however, was not involved in the day to day affairs of defendant no. 1 which remained in hands of defendant no. 2. The written statement of CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 11 of 26 Defendant No. 4 is filed on the same lines as that of defendant No. 1 and 2 and similar submissions have been made with prayer to dismiss the suit.
20.Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff denying all the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the contents of the plaint.
21.Vide order dated 15.10.2015, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of all the partners of the relevant defendant No.1? (OPD)
2. Whether there is no privity of contract between defendants and plaintiff No. 2 and if so its effect on the suit? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant Nos. 6 and 8 due to their resignation from the defendant No. 1? (OPD 6 and 8)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of amount of Rs.19,65,212/ as claimed? (OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
6. Relief.
22.It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of trial, CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 12 of 26 plaintiff intended to drop defendant No. 3 and defendant Nos. 5 to 9, for which a separate statement was recorded on 28.04.2016. Thus, defendant No.3 and defendant Nos. 5 to 9 have been allowed to be withdrawn from the arrays of parties.
23.During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit Ex.PW1/A, reiterating the contents of the plaint, same is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. In his testimony PW1 has relied upon the certified copy of the Consulting Agreement dated 08.12.2009 exhibited as Ex.PW1/1, certificate of registration of firm exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, the invoices dated 10.05.2010 (01 nos), 08.09.2010, 20.10.2010 and 22.11.2010 duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.), the printout of email dated 23.06.2010 duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/4, Emails and SMS messages sent on various occasions are Ex.PW1/5 (colly.), copy of legal notice dated 19.01.2013 along with postal and courier receipts are Ex.PW1/6 (colly.). The said witness was crossexamined on behalf of the defendants. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.04.2016, PE was closed.
24.On the other hand, defendant No.2 Sh. Somabrata Mandal was examined as D2W1, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit exhibited as Ex.D2W1/A. D2W1 relied upon copy of Partnership Deed dated 19.04.2007 already marked as CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 13 of 26 Mark DA, the office copies of the correct invoices for an amount of Rs.2.43 crores (approx.) and Rs.1.19 crores (approx.) both dated 31.03.2010 raised by defendants No. 1 upon the client Hinduja Group are Ex.D2W1/1(colly.), tabular representation of the outstanding invoices that were raised by plaintiff are Ex.D2W1/2, copy of partnership deed dated 02.11.2006 is Ex.D2W1/3. The said witness was cross examined at length on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 28.08.2018.
25.Final arguments were duly adduced by both the counsels at length. I have duly considered the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for both the parties and have perused the evidence on record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:
26. ISSUE Nos. 1 and 31. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of all the partners of the relevant defendant No.1? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant Nos. 6 and 8 due to their resignation from the defendant No. 1? (OPD 6 and 8)
27. The onus of these issues is upon the defendant. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 28.04.2016, defendant No. 3 and 5 to 9 have been dropped from the arrays of the parties. In other words, by virtue of order dated 28.04.2016 plaintiffs have not CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 14 of 26 pressed their suit against defendant No. 3 and 5 to 9. Thus, in these circumstances, by virtue of order dated 28.04.2016 no observation is required to be given upon issue nos. 1 and 3.28. Issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5
2. Whether there is no privity of contract between defendants and plaintiff No. 2 and if so its effect on the suit? (OPD)
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of amount of Rs.19,65,212/ as claimed?
(OPP)
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
29. The onus of issue no.2 is upon defendant and onus of issue Nos. 4 and 5 are upon the plaintiffs. These issues being interlinked are taken up together. Plaintiff No. 1 has examined himself as PW1 as sole witness on their behalf and defendants have examined one Somabrata Mandal as D2W1, though two affidavits as per record have been filed on behalf of defendants, however, only one witness i.e., D2W1 appeared in witness box for his examination.
30.PW1 in his examinationinchief has stated all the facts as narrated by him in the plaint which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. PW1 in his crossexamination has stated that he joined defendant firm in April 2006 as a Consultant/retainer CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 15 of 26 and by the end of year 2009, PW1 left defendant No.1 and started his own law firm by the name of SRGR Law Officers. PW1 was inducted as a partner in Fox Mandal somewhere in April, 2007. With regard to raising invoices by defendant No.1 for the work done, PW1 has stated that it were raised on a case to case or client to client basis. PW1 has furnished the proof pertaining to his being partner in plaintiff No.2, which is Ex.PW1/4. It is stated that consultancy agreement Ex.PW1/1 commenced in December, 2009. It is stated that when PW1 was working as retainer with defendant No.1, a work pertaining to legal services relating to thermal power project of Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited (HNPCL) was assigned to him along with other retainers.
31.During his cross examination PW1 has denied suggestion that in August, 2010 an understanding was reached that defendant No.2 would make payment of Rs.2.5 Lakhs towards full and final settlement towards his dues and agreement dated 08.12.2009 would stand superceded. PW1 further denied the suggestion that Rs. 2.5 Lakhs was paid towards full and final settlement of his dues. PW1 has admitted that plaintiff No. 2 is not the party to the agreement dated 08.12.2019. PW1 has also admitted that no services were rendered by plaintiff No. 2 to defendant No. 1. PW 1 has further admitted that agreement dated 08.12.2009 does not contain any clause to CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 16 of 26 pay interest.
32.During cross examination defendant gave suggestion that due to non realization of outstanding invoices, a sum of Rs.61,71,911/ is still to be realized from various clients handled by plaintiff since January, 2007. In this regard it is important to mention here that defendant has not pressed for any set off nor has filed any counter claim nor has placed on record any document in this regard. Therefore, this plea of outstanding invoices for a sum of Rs.61,71,911/, in my considered opinion cannot be considered to be relevant.
33.PW1 has admitted that he has received an amount of Rs.2.5 Lakhs on 06.09.2010. PW1 has admitted that an FIR dated 14.12.2011 under Section 419/420/406/408/464/468/471 IPC and under Section 65 and 66 of the I. T. Act has been registered against him.
34.From the evidence led by plaintiff/PW1, with regard to "onus", following facts have been alleged by PW1;
i. Plaintiff No.1 was retainer with defendant No. 1 and later on became its partner.
ii. Plaintiff No.1 retired from defendant No.1 and by the end of year 2009 he started working independently and CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 17 of 26 thereafter opened a partnership firm i.e. plaintiff No.2. iii. Job of plaintiff No.1 while his tenure with defendant No.1 was to look after the specific legal work assigned to him and for his consultancy/legal work he had raised certain invoices.
iv. Plaintiff No.1 has not been paid fully as a sum of Rs.13,12,294.25p as unpaid invoice amount is outstanding against defendant No.1.
v. Invoices raised by plaintiff No. 1 against defendant No. 1 are issued in the name of plaintiff No.2.
vi. Plaintiff No. 1 has sent various reminders through emails and SMS.
vii. Plaintiff has given a legal notice dated 19.01.2013 which is not replied.
35. There are other facts which have been put forth by defendant during cross examination of defendant No. 1 though denied, that a settlement was arrived at with plaintiff No.1 on 08.12.2009 vide which he was paid Rs.2.5 Lakhs towards full and final settlement. Onus of all these facts therefore, is shifted upon defendant.
36.Defendant in their evidence have examined Somabrata Mandal as D2W1. D2W1 is defendant No.2 and a partner of defendant No.1. It is stated that in the beginning of the year 2006, plaintiff CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 18 of 26 No.1 was inducted as retainer with defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 was inducted as a partner of defendant No.1 as well w.e.f. 01.01.2007. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 was assigned and entrusted sector specific work for which report was to be submitted to D2W1. One of the prestigious client of defendant No. 1 was 'Hinduja Groups' who engaged defendant No. 1 in the year 2007, for providing legal services for setting up a power plant in Andra Pradesh. Invoices were supposed to be raised after financial closing. Plaintiff No.1 was having complete charge of the assignment though other senior associates were also attached with him. Plaintiff No.1, however, malafidely started to sideline other associates and took hold of the entire work by himself. He became the sole contact point for Hinduja group. In the year 2009, this project reached at its final stage and plaintiff No.1 started preparing invoices. Plaintiff No.1, however, sent his resignation with a threat that he should enter into a consulting agreement on terms and conditions dictated by him. Defendant No.1 had to accede to the demand of plaintiff No.1 and a consulting agreement dated 08.12.2009 was entered into between plaintiff and defendant No. 2. As per the understanding plaintiff was supposed to raise an invoice upon Hinduja Group however, he sent the invoices of Hinduja Group for a sum of Rs.1.64 crore only. Defendant No.2 has expressed his displeasure in this regard. Defendant, however, after much difficulty corrected the invoices and raised it upto Rs.2.43 crore CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 19 of 26 and Rs.1.19 crore both dated 31.03.2010. Due to acts of plaintiff No. 1, they raised an outstanding invoice for a sum of Rs. 61,17,911/ to be realized from various clients handled by him since January, 2007. Plaintiff No. 1 has also started soliciting work from clients of defendant No. 1 which is in violation of their agreement and partnership deed dated 19.04.2007. Defendant No.2 had a meeting with plaintiff no. 1 during August, 2010 wherein all the issues were discussed and an agreement was arrived at amongst them by which Rs.2.5 Lakhs was paid on 06.09.2010 to plaintiff No.1 towards full and final settlement. Plaintiff No.1 however, has been demanding much more than that. Plaintiff No.1 has also misappropriated and has caused huge losses to defendant No.1 for which an FIR Ex.PW1/D3 has also been registered against him. Invoices have been raised by SRGR Law Offices a partnership firm for which defendant No. 1 has no privity of contract.
37.During his crossexamination, D2W1 has stated that plaintiff No.1 was hired as a Senior Associate. Consulting agreement Ex.PW1/1 is not disputed. With regard to consulting agreement it is stated that this agreement was never acted upon however certain payments were made to plaintiff no. 1. D2W1 has not specified as to what certain payments were made to plaintiff No.1 though he has admitted that this agreement was never acted upon. D2W1 has admitted that a sum of Rs.1,30,706/ CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 20 of 26 was paid against invoice dated 29.05.2010, Rs.71,970.75p against invoice dated 03.06.2010. D2W1 however has expressed his ignorance that defendant no. 1 had paid a sum of Rs.3,91,289/ against invoice dated 06.07.2010. These three invoices dated 29.05.2010, 03.06.2010 and 06.07.2010 are mentioned in plaint as well as evidence of plaintiff as paid.
38.D2W1 has further stated that they had not filed any suit for recovery against 'Hindujas'. D2W1 has further not given specific reply for filing a suit for recovery of Rs.61,17,911/ against other persons. It is important to mention here that it has been stated by defendants in their WS as well as in examination in chief of D2W1 that there are outstanding dues against 'Hinduja Group' and other persons however, no suit for recovery is filed.
39.With regard to invoices alleged to be raised by plaintiff No.1 as mentioned in para No. 9 of plaint at its internal page No.7, D2W1 has admitted only invoice dated 29.05.2010 and 03.06.2010 and have expressed his ignorance about other invoices which are eight in total. With regard to legal notice, D2W1 has also expressed his ignorance having received the same. With regard to threats extended by plaintiff No.1 resulting into signing into consulting agreement dated CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 21 of 26 08.12.2009, D2W1 has further stated that threat was oral and not in writing.
40.From the evidence led by both the parties it is reflected that in para No. 9 of the plaint in its internal page No. 7, plaintiff has categorically given details of 8 invoices raised against defendant no. 1 out of which only three are alleged to be paid. In its written statement, defendants however have not given a detail and specific reply to the eight invoices so raised nor has given specific answer to the payment made against three invoices during cross examination of D2W1. The only answer given by and on behalf of defendants is that whatever outstanding dues were pertaining to plaintiff no. 1, a settlement was arrived at and he has been given a sum of Rs.2.50 Lakhs. As per Indian Evidence Act, the onus of proving the fact that a settlement was arrived at in between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 through defendant no. 2 is upon defendant themselves. During entire evidence led by defendant and in the sole testimony of D2W1, in my considered opinion defendant have not been able to discharge the burden of proving this fact upon them. This fact is further strengthened from the facts emerging from the pleadings supporting that plaintiff was admittedly paid a sum of Rs.1,30,706/ and Rs.71,970.75p against invoice dated 29.05.2010 and 03.06.2010, whereas payment of Rs.3,91,289/ alleged to have been received by CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 22 of 26 plaintiff and defendants have expressed their ignorance in this regard. If all these three figures are added then they come out to be more than Rs.2.50 Lakhs. It is a matter of record, as stated by plaintiff No. 1 himself that these payments are made in May and July, 2010 itself when the alleged settlement of receiving full and final payment of Rs.2.50 is alleged by defendant. In this regard, in my considered opinion, as already stated above facts alleged by defendant of settling all the dues with plaintiff no. 1 are not supported with corroborative piece of evidence.
41.From the arguments it has also come on record that plaintiff No.1 has rendered his services to the defendant. Consultancy agreement dated 08.12.2009 is also not disputed. During arguments, as well as reflected from the pleadings, defendant has alleged that due to misconduct and manipulation of plaintiff No. 1 there are various outstanding dues towards other parties to the tune of Rs.61,71,911/ however, defendants who are themselves a law firm have neither filed any suit of recovery nor have placed on record and notice sent to such other parties claiming such outstanding dues. Thus, this defence taken by defendants against plaintiff No.1 that he was not honest all the time and has manipulated various things as well as solicited clients of defendant No.1, cannot be said to be substantiated by any corroborative piece of evidence. One FIR Ex.PW1/D3 has been registered against plaintiff No.1 though final verdict of CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 23 of 26 concerned court is yet to come. In this regard, in my considered opinion, mere registration of an FIR does not make a person guilty, unless until proved and any observation of the court In these circumstances, none of the defence taken by defendant against plaintiff No.1 is supported with any evidence hence, in my considered opinion defendants are not successful in shifting the onus of proving their defence upon plaintiff No. 1.
42.Now, coming to the case of the plaintiff No.1, there are specific averments as mentioned in para no. 9 of the plaint which are supported with evidence and documents filed along with the judicial record that plaintiff No. 1 has rendered his services as per the agreement of retainership and agreement dated 08.12.2009. Plaintiff No.1 has also led evidence that he had raised eight invoices out of which three have been paid only and remaining five are unpaid. Neither these averments are specifically countered in their written statement nor during cross examination of PW1 or examination of D2W1 details of payment of three invoices or any other outstanding dues or insufficient or incomplete work done by plaintiff No.1 has been brought on record by defendants. In these circumstances therefore, in my considered opinion plaintiff No.1, has been able to establish the fact that there are five invoices outstanding against defendants out of total eight invoices which are still unpaid.
CS No.15989/16Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 24 of 26
43.With regard to issue No. 2 onus of which is upon the defendant, it has been the case of plaintiff No. 1 himself that it was he who had personally entered into a contract of retainership with defendant no. 1 and later on become partner as well and by a special consultancy agreement dated 08.12.2009. He had rendered his services for defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.2 was not in existence at that time. Moreso, plaintiff No.2 is a partnership firm which has no agreement with defendant No.1 invoices however are raised by plaintiff No. 2. Admittedly plaintiff No. 2 is not a party to Consulting Agreement. Thus, in my considered opinion there exists no privity of contract between plaintiff No.2 and defendant. Hence, issue No.2 is decided in favour of defendant that plaintiff No.2 being stranger to contract with defendants, more particularly defendant No.1, is not entitled to recover anything.
44.Plaintiff No. 1 however, has established that he was having agreement with defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 has also substantiated his averments against defendants as mentioned above that he is entitled to recover the outstanding invoices as mentioned in para No. 9 of the plaint. These invoices however, are raised by plaintiff No. 1 through his firm plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 has shown from the record that though these invoices are raised through plaintiff No.2, however, they pertain CS No.15989/16 Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 25 of 26 to the work done by him as per agreement for defendants. In these circumstances, it is important to mention here that mere nomenclature of a document cannot render such document in admissible if such document in substance is reflecting the matter in issue, which is in present case pertaining to, and arising out of the agreement in between plaintiff no. 1 and defendants. It is needless to say that technicalities of law should not come in the way of justice. Therefore, in my considered opinion plaintiff No. 1 has been able to discharge the burden of proving issue nos. 4 and 5 in his favour
45.RELIEF.
In light of the above discussion, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has been able to establish its case against the defendants. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed for a sum of Rs.19,65,212/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve only) along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till its realization alongwith costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities.
Announced in the open court (PRASHANT KUMAR)
on 20th December, 2021 ADJ01/ Central District
Tis Hazari Court/Delhi.
CS No.15989/16
Ravi Bishnoi Vs. Fox Mandal & Co. Page No. 26 of 26