Delhi District Court
Vedangsoft Pvt Ltd vs Raghuveer Singh on 13 December, 2025
DLST010043452022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS DJ no. 308/2022
Filing No. 2218/2022
CNR No. DLST01-0004345-2022
In the matter of
Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd.
Business Development Office
F-55 K/3, Radhey Mohan Drive Jonapur,
New Delhi-110047. ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Raghuveer Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Shatrughan Singh.
R/o VPO Gayghat,
District Sant Kabir Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh. .......Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.05.2022
Date of reserving the judgment : 13.12.2025 (F/N)
Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2025 (A/N)
Decision : Suit decreed
Digitally signed by Arul
Varma
Arul Varma Date: 2025.12.13 17:18:25
+0530
CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 1 of 14
Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF.................................................3
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS.............................................9
III. ISSUES FRAMED...................................................................................... 10
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF.............................................................10
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................11
Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of amount of
Rs.3,69,500/- against the defendant alongwith pendentelite and future
interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of the amount? OPP........11
VI. RELIEF........................................................................................................14
Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2025.12.13
17:18:31 +0530
CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 2 of 14
Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
1.The facts as asseverated by the plaintiff are hereby succinctly recapitulated: It is submitted that the plaintiff is a Company engaged in the business of Information and Technology for last many years and is running the business under the name of VedangSoft Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Vedang Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd.) having its registered office at C2/2524, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 and Business Development office at F-55 K/3, Radhey Mohan Drive Jonapur, New Delhi-110047 and Digital Green, Tower-B, 16th Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-61, Gurgaon-122001.
2. It is further submitted that VedangSoft is having good business reputation and goodwill in the market, is promoted by Industry professionals who are known leaders in their respective field and recognized as a leading Information Technology Company specializing in Energy, Oil and Gas, E- Governance, Geospatial and Engineering Services. VedangSoft Pvt. Ltd. owns more than two dozen Intellectual Properties.
3. It is averred that considering the reputation and expertise of the company, the defendant showed keen interest to join the plaintiff company and accordingly applied for a position as per his own desire and will and appeared for interview at F-55 Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.12.13 CS DJ 308/2022 Varma 17:18:35 +0530 Page. 3 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh K/3, Radhey Mohan Drive Jonapur, New Delhi-110047/ Defendant was appointed to the position of a "Software Engineer" on 11.12.2018 in terms of the Employment Contract/ Appointment letter dated 11.12.2018.
4. It is submitted that in addition to the Employment Contract, defendant executed a "Confidentiality Agreement" dated 11.12.2018 at F-55 K/3, Radhey Mohan Drive Jonapur, New Delhi-110047. While executing the agreement, defendant voluntarily agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the said Contract and Agreement.
5. It is further submitted that during defendant's tenure as an employee from 11.12.2018 to July 2019, defendant was imparted with special training program from time to time under the guidance of Experts and Senior Engineers/ officials and plaintiff company had to spend huge money in order to train defendant.
6. It is averred that during the course of the employment, the defendant was handling and dealing with the confidential information as well as trade secrets of the business of one of VedangSoft client i.e. SIIDCUL. As per law, confidentiality agreement and professional ethics, a trade secret should not be divulged by any employee to any competitor or outsider in the interest of the employer, not only during the course of ht employment but even thereafter because business is also about dealing with the clients, networking and keeping Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2025.12.13 17:18:40 +0530 CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 4 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh confidential information or trade secrets under cover which are very specific to a particular trade or business.
7. It is submitted that defendant was handling and taking care of company Clients meeting and keeping extreme confidential information and trade secrets like methods and manner of business, meeting with the clients etc., and having their contact details which are extremely personal and treated as trade secret. As per the agreement, defendant has been fore stopped divulging any written, electronic, and/ or oral information which are confidential.
8. It is further submitted that on 03.02.2020 defendant approached plaintiff Company and requested for a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was paid by company vide online transfer 07.02.2020 (Transfer reference No.0000000430572503) with an assurance that loan will be returned within one month from the receipt of amount.
9. It is averred that after the loan amount was transferred, defendant approached plaintiff on 07.02.2020 and instead of returning the loan amount within a agreed period of one month, defendant requested plaintiff to deduct a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from his salary
10.It is submitted that suddenly defendant stopped coming to the office and have acted surreptitiously by taking one PC Laptop (Make Lenovo) belonging to company from its office without permission which contained various confidential information.
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 5 ofDate:
14 2025.12.13
Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh Varma 17:18:45 +0530
After taking away the PC Laptop from Office, defendant stopped coming to office and wrote an email on 12.03.2020 that he have left Delhi for his hometown and requested for a 2 day leave.
11.It is further submitted that the defendant has taken advantage of his position in plaintiff company by stealing the various software's along with the source code. While defendant abruptly stopped coming to office to perform his duties since March 07, 2020, defendant also failed to hand over the Source code, records and other important data of plaintiff company with a mala fide intention and used such confidential information maliciously with an ulterior design and caused huge financial loss and loss of reputation to Company.
12.It is averred that the defendant has willfully breached the above stated clause of the Employment Contract. Plaintiff has come to know that defendant is imparting/leaking all the trade secrets and confidential information to his new employer for his own personal benefits, which is completely against the law, employment contract and professional ethics. The plaintiff since 12.03.2020 kept repeatedly asking the defendant to join the office via email dated 27.03.2020 and email dated 05.05.2020 but he neglected to reply to these emails nor responded to any of the calls made by the Company.
Digitally signed
Arul byDate:Arul Varma
Varma 2025.12.13
17:18:50 +0530
CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 6 of 14
Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh
13.It is submitted that instead of joining the office, defendant had been sending false report to plaintiff that he was working for SIIDCUL project and closing the issues raised by the said client I.e. SIIDCUL However, SIIDCUL Management informed plaintiff vide various e-mails dated 16.03.2020, 17.03.2020 and 19.03.2020 that defendant has not closed the project which in turn has resulted loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- Liquidated damage (LD) imposed by client to plaintiff company. On coming to know about defendant false and misleading excuses, plaintiff decided to constitute an Enquiry Committee to look into the matter and vide various calls and emails dated June 25th, 06.07.2020 and 08.07,2020, afforded defendant several opportunities to appear and explain his reasons for absence Legal notice was also issued to defendant on 16.07.2020 for breach of terms of employment & recovery of cost and damages which defendant chose to ignore and not replied.
14.It is further submitted that in view of defendant's absence, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the Management affirming the allegations against defendant and thereby terminating his services w.e.f 07.03.2020 by issuing a letter of termination. Further while terminating his services, defendant was also called to return the software code to Sachin Bhatt on of the employee and called upon to immediately return the PC Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2025.12.13 17:18:55 +0530 CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 7 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh note book (Lenovo), all software's and also return Rs. 1,00,000/- loan which was taken as loan from company.
15. It is averred that defendants action of supplying incorrect information about his work and taking away the PC laptop and the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- is clearly reflective as to how defendant have meticulously conspired against plaintiff and caused loss of Lakhs of rupees and loss of business. That the acts, activities, conduct and behavior on contravention of the terms and conditions of the Employment part are in Contract/Appointment Letter and Confidentiality Agreement and due to defendants attitude and acts, plaintiff has suffered financially and is continuously suffering losses on day to day basis.
16.That plaintiff has provided defendant with special Training by the Expert Trainers at its own cost, which has cost plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Despite such training, defendant failed and neglected to provide his services for the betterment of company client and instead of serving plaintiff company he availed the said training at plaintiff cost and utilized the technical know-how for his own benefits by imparting the same to his new employer, thereby causing loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to VedangSoft on account of training cost and further loss of business by breach of Confidentiality Agreement.
Digitally signedArul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.12.13 17:18:59 +0530 CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 8 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh
17.It is submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss suffered on the training provided to defendant; an amount of 1,50,000/- on account of Liquidated damage to Plaintiff Company from SIIDCUL project; an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. since February 07, 2020 on account of loan taken from company and an amount of Rs. 19,500/- towards the cost of the PC note book = Total Rs 3,69,500 and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs 3,69,500/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, award the cost of the suit, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS
18.As per the record, summons were issued to the defendant and counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 16.08.2022. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Mediation Center, upon the willingness shown by the parties. On 05.01.2023, report from Mediation Center was received alongwith Mediation Settlement Agreement (MSA) wherein the matter was settled between the parties for a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement. Order dated 07.07.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, shows that only Rs. 40,000/- was paid by defendant out of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court shows that Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2025.12.13 17:19:03 +0530 CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 9 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh further amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by defendant and only Rs. 90,000/- was left to be paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, no written statement has been placed on record. Vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Ld. predecessor Court, defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
III. ISSUES FRAMED
19.Vide order dated 28.03.2025 following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of amount of Rs.3,69,500/- against the defendant alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of the amount? OPP
2. Relief."
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF.
20.In the proceeding only one witness was examined by plaintiff company, succinct testimony whereof is as follows:
21.PW-1 Plaintiff Sh. Santosh Kumar Sharma: He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. copy of Certificate of Incorporation dated 26.02.2020, Ex. PW/1 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark PW/1 (page no. 21 & 22); photocopy of Employment Contract dated 11.12.2018, Ex. PW/2 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark PW/2 (page no. 23 to 25); photocopy of Confidentiality Agreement dated 11.12.2018, Ex. PW/3 is de-
exhibited and is marked as Mark PW/3; photocopy of Employee Loan Agreement dated 07.02.2020, Ex. PW/4 is Digitally signed CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 10 of by 14Arul Varma Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh Arul Date:
Varma 17:19:08 2025.12.13 +0530 de-exhibited and is marked as Mark PW/4 (page no. 27 to
30); photocopy of e-mail dated 12.03.2020 sent by defendant to plaintiff company with supporting certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW/5; photocopy of e-mails dated 27.03.2020 and 05.05.2020 sent by plaintiff company to defendant with supporting certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW/6 (colly) (page no, 33 & 34); photocopy of e-
mail dated 16.03.2020, 17.03.2020 and 19.03.2020 by SIIDCUL Dehradun to the plaintiff that defendant had not completed the assigned project, Ex. PW/7 (NO DOCUMENT ON RECORD); photocopy of e-mails dated 06.07.2020 and 08.07.2020 sent by plaintiff company to defendant with supporting certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW/8 (colly); and photocopy of legal notice dated 16.07.2020 sent by plaintiff company to defendant, Ex. PW/9.
22.Final arguments heard and records have been perused.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of amount of Rs.3,69,500/- against the defendant alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of the amount? OPP
23. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. In order to prove this issue the plaintiff examined Sh. Santosh Kumar Sharma Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2025.12.13 17:19:12 +0530 CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 11 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh as PW-1 and he relied upon documents Mark PW/1 to Mark PW/4. He also filed documents Ex. PW/5 to Ex. PW/9.
24. As per order dated 16.01.2025 of Ld. Predecessor of this court, Sh. A.K. Rai and Sh. Siyaram Rai, Ld. Counsels for defendant appeared that day and filed vakalatnama and matter was referred to Mediation Center at joint request of the parties. Matter was received back as settled from Mediation Center vide settlement agreement dated 15.11.2022 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Order dated 07.07.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, shows that only Rs. 40,000/- was paid by defendant out of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court shows that further amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by defendant and only Rs. 90,000/- was left to be paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, no written statement has been placed on record. Vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Ld. predecessor Court, defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
25.It is settled law that where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, it would give an inference adverse against him and a presumption u/s 114 of Indian Evidence Act may be drawn against that party.
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Varma Date: 2025.12.13
17:19:15 +0530
CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 12 of 14
Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh
26.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 has categorically observed that:
"16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai C.R.P.(PD)No.2182 of 2019 Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box." The above ratio was followed by this Court in 2016 (4) CTC 158, Thomas and another vs. Thiyagarajan."
27.In the present case also defendant did not enter into the witness box and accordingly a presumption u/s 114 of Indian Evidence Act is made to be drawn in the present facts and circumstances of this case, where even the written statement was also not filed by the defendant despite a number of opportunities.
28. As the present matter was settled between the parties before Mediation Cell for Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- have been paid by the defendant and Rs. 90,000/- was left to be paid to Digitally CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 13 of 14signed by Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh Arul Date:
Arul Varma Varma 2025.12.13 17:19:19 +0530 the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled for decree of this amount of Rs. 90,000/- against defendant. The plaintiff has sought interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a. However, interest @ 18% from the date of its payment till realization is against public policy. So plaintiff shall be entitled for the decreetal amount together with interest @ 12% p.a., as agreed before the Mediation Center, from the date of filing of the suit to the date of decree and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree to the date of payment. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
VI. RELIEF.
29. Ergo, in view of the above in extenso discussion, the suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff with the following relief:
(a) The plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit to the date of decree and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree to the date of payment.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. No order as to costs.
32. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Pronounced in the open Court Digitally signed on this 13th December, 2025. Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.12.13 17:19:24 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI CS DJ 308/2022 Page. 14 of 14 Vedangsoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raghuveer Singh