Delhi District Court
Manish Mittal vs Udaan India P.Ltd on 27 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MEENU KAUSHIK: DJ - 03: NEW DELHI
DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS No. 56837/2016
CNR No. DLND010009412014
In the matter of:
Manish Mittal,
S/o Shri Yogesh Chandra Mittal,
R/o DP 33, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi 110088
...Plaintiff
Versus
1 Udaan India Private Limited,
309-312, 3rd Floor, Somdutt Chambers 2,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
Delhi 110066
Through its Managing Director
Mr. Rajan Dua.
2 Mr. Nirupam Kathuria,
Udaan India Private Limited,
309-312, 3rd Floor, Somdutt Chambers 2,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
Delhi 110066
...Defendants
Date of institution : 05.03.2014
Date on which reserved for judgment : 10.03.2026
Date of decision : 27.03.2026
Decision : Dismissed
CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 1/16
JUDGMENT
1 The present suit for declaration and recovery of salary and damages for wrongful termination has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
Plaint/Plaintiffs' version 2 It is case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as Manager Sales at a fixed salary of Rs.41,560/- PM vide offer letter dated 20.08.2012 by the Defendant No. 1. It is stated that plaintiff did his duty diligently, regularly with utmost punctuality and sincerity. It is further stated that plaintiff used to work beyond his normal working hours i.e. 9.30 AM to 6.00 PM and would leave around 8.30 PM - 9.00 PM. It is further stated that when once or twice he left at 6.30 PM due to personal reasons after informing defendant No. 2 who was the Vice President of defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 2 started harassing the plaintiff and also developed personal grudge against him. It is further stated that defendant No. 2 humiliated the plaintiff in front of his colleagues and other office staff on many occasions. Further to harass the plaintiff, salary of plaintiff for the month of August 2013 was held back illegally and was only released in the month of September after persistent oral and written requests by the plaintiff to Ms. Tavleen Kaur, Manager (HR), Ms. Pooja Sarin Business Development (Head), Mr. H.K. Shah- CFO, Mr. Nirupam Kathuria - Vice President & Mr. Rajan Dua - Managing Director. It is further stated that salary of the plaintiff for the month of September 2013 was also put on hold and when the plaintiff enquired about the same through e-mail dated 07.10.2013, defendant No. 2 abruptly refused to allow him to attend his CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 2/16 duty any further and informed plaintiff that his services were no more required by the defendant and thus the plaintiff was forced to resign from his services vide email dated 07.10.2013. It is further stated that harassment of the plaintiff by defendant No. 2 did not end there as he received an e-mail dated 07.10.2013 after tendering his resignation by which he was informed that his services were terminated on the arbitrary ground that he had breached Clause 3.3 of his appointment letter for breach of duties. It is stated that service of plaintiff was terminated vide e-mail dated 07.10.2013 without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. That defendant's predetermined reply vide e-mail dated 07.10.2013 to the coerced resignation of plaintiff was sent in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by defendant No.2 in connivance of then Manager-HR, Tavleen Kaur in order to malign and harass the plaintiff. It is further stated that termination of the plaintiff was due to a complaint filed at Nizzamuddin Police Station by some Mr. M.K.Bakshi with regards to alleged Passport Assistance provided by the plaintiff to him. That in order to satisfy his personal score with the plaintiff, defendant No.2 seized the opportunity and hatched the conspiracy to terminate his services of plaintiff. It is further stated that on 16.11.2013 said Mr. M.K. Bakshi in his statement to the SHO of Nizzamuddin Police station has confirmed the non-involvement of the plaintiff in any such complaint filed by him and has also withdrawn the said complaint. It is further stated that from the date of coerced resignation of the plaintiff, plaintiff was entitled to receive salary for the month of September, 2013; 6 days salary for the month of October, 2013; and one month salary in lieu of the notice period which comes to Rs. 88,000/-.
CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 3/16 3 It is further stated that to harass the plaintiff, defendant Company sent letter dated 30.10.2013 relating to Clearance of Dues / F & F of the plaintiff by which it was informed that dues of plaintiff will be adjusted against the dues recoverable from the agents handled by the plaintiff. No details were provided by defendants with regards to the alleged outstanding, if any, to be received from the agents handled by the plaintiff. It is stated that there are no dues/outstanding amounts payable by the plaintiff to defendant Company and any dues that are being alleged are dues of the defendant company in the normal course of its business and have nothing to with the plaintiff in his personal capacity and any adjustment of the plaintiff's dues against the dues recoverable from the agents is arbitrary, illegal, irregular, wrongful and against the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that defendant Company initially gave false assurances to plaintiff to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 88,000/- which is legally due however, on 30.10.2013 defendant clearly refused to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. It is further stated that in order to harass the plaintiff, defendants have not even provided the details of statutory benefits i.e. ESI & P.F. etc to the plaintiff till date. It is further stated that due to the wrongful termination by the defendants, the plaintiff has not only suffered financially but also mentally and plaintiff and his family have been subjected to a lot of trauma and suffering due to the harassment. It is further stated that legal notice dated 07.12.2013 was sent to Managing Director of Defendant No.1 through his counsel but reply to said notice was never received and hence, the present suit.
CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 4/16 WRITTEN STATEMENT:
4 In written statement, defendants have taken preliminary objection that plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants for filing the present suit. It is stated that plaintiff could not perform very basic tasks such as providing satisfactory services to the clients of defendant No.1, handling team of employees allocated to him and boosting the business of defendant No.1. It is further stated that as there were certain liabilities of plaintiff towards defendant No.1, plaintiff was called upon by defendant No.1 to settle his full and final amount but instead of coming forward to settle the amount, plaintiff initiated the present proceedings. It is further stated that plaint is absolutely silent about any cause of action against the defendants in respect of damages suffered by him. It is stated that suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as plaintiff has impleaded defendant No.2 in his individual capacity however, there is no specific allegation against defendant No.2 in his individual capacity. It is stated that relationship between plaintiff and defendant No.2 is not that of an employee or employer as both were working under defendant No.1. It is stated that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has also suppressed the material facts. It is stated that plaintiff was never diligent in his duties, used to report to duty late frequently and used to remain absent from work and also used to leave the office without any intimation prior to office hours. It is stated that when plaintiff realized that job profile in defendant No.1 company was beyond his capabilities and expertise, plaintiff tendered his resignation on 07.10.2013. It is stated that defendant No.1 is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.13,468/- from the CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 5/16 plaintiff besides the amount of damages on account of business losses occurred and excessive salary received by plaintiff. Plaintiff caused loss to defendant No.1 by assisting his private clients, other rivals and competitor of defendant No.1. It is further stated that initially plaintiff was assigned to run Gurgaon based office of the defendant No. 1 but very soon the management discovered that being the sole in-charge of Gurgaon office, the plaintiff was taking undue advantage of his position and was neither reporting to his duties on time and nor was holding his office for complete office hours. Not only this, plaintiff also used to be absent from his duties very frequently. Although the management had hired the services of plaintiff to manage their Gurgaon office only and the misconduct of plaintiff proved that he was not fit person to perform his job, but still taking a lenient approach against plaintiff, the management instead of terminating his services, transferred him from Gurgaon office to New Delhi office of Defendant No. 1. It is further stated that even in New Delhi office the plaintiff did not mend his ways. It is further stated that various emails placed on record show how time and again plaintiff failed to perform his duty and how many time he was requested to properly concentrate on his job but to no avail. It is further stated that defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 do not have any liability towards the plaintiff and plaintiff has concealed the material facts and has not come to court with clean hands.
Replication:
5 Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendants wherein plaintiff reiterated averments made in the plaint and CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 6/16 denied all the averments mentioned in the written statement by the defendants.
Issues:
6 After completion of pleadings of parties following issues were framed:
i) Whether plaintiff has suppressed vital and material facts from this court? OPD 1 & 2
ii) Whether there is no cause of action against defendants? OPD 1 & 2
iii) Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant No.2 as a party to the suit? OPD 1 & 2
iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages? If Yes, how much?
OPP v) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of salary? OPP vi) Relief. Plaintiff's evidence: 7 Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 who tendered his
examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. P1 and relied upon the appointment letter alongwith an annexure Ex.PW1/1, Emails dated 13.09.2013 Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (5 pages), Email dated 07.10.2013 at 1.25 PM Ex.PW1/3, Email dated 07.10.2013 at 1.48 PM Ex.PW1/4, Resignation by email dated 07.10.2013 at 06.27 PM Ex.PW1/5, Termination by email dated 07.10.2013 at 6.48 PM Ex.PW1/6, Emails dated 10.10.2013 at 8.00 AM and 10.27 AM Ex.PW1/7(colly), Receiving of letter dated 24.10.2013 for returning the office property CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 7/16 is Ex.PW1/8, original termination letter dated 07.10.2013 Ex.PW1/9, copy of application dated 16.11.2013 addressed to SHO Nizamuddin by Mr. M.K. Bakshi Mark A, office copy of letter dated 09.11.2013 for non receipt of full and final settlement Ex.PW1/10, the original postal receipt Ex.PW1/11, original letter dated 30.10.2013 as Ex.PW1/12, office copy of the legal notice dated 06.12.2013 as Ex.
PW1/13, original postal receipt for sending the legal notice is Ex.PW1/14 and certificate U/s. 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/15.
8 During course of cross examination PW-1 stated that he is working with Travelkart Excursion (P) Ltd. since past three months. He admitted that defendant No.2 was Vice President of defendant No.1 and was employee of defendant No.1. He also admitted that no individual or personal transaction/dealing or relation had ever been between him and defendant No.2. He further admitted that his dues are against defendant No.1 only and impleading defendant No.2 in the present suit was not correct. He volunteered to submit that defendant No.2 was harassing him during his service and he was the one who blocked the disbursement of his salary for the month of August and September, 2013 and that is why he made him party to the suit. He further stated that he had not written any letter or email with respect to his averment and harassment done by defendant No.2. He further stated that he joined defendant No.1 in August, 2012 as per the attached appointment letter and he resigned from company on 07.10.2013. He further stated that he had not written any mail or letter when defendant No.2 refused him to allow to attend the office. He further stated that after his resignation letter on 07.10.2013, defendant CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 8/16 No.1 terminated his service. He admitted that notice dated 06.12.2013 was issued to defendant No.1 only and he had not asked any damages against defendant No.1 in the said notice. He further stated that he cannot show any document that he was working beyond the working hours of the office. He further stated that he did not resign voluntarily and he was asked to resign by Mr. Nirupam Kathuria on their terms and conditions and when he was writing the resignation letter, Mr. Kathuria did not find the language appropriate to his satisfaction and he tore apart the resignation letter and then he left the office and typed his resignation letter and sent through his personal email ID. He further stated that after his resignation he was served termination letter as the reply to his resignation email and the termination letter was a general comment and not mentioned his name. He further stated that due to negative references from the defendant company and Mr. Nirupam Kathuria, he could not get any job for next 8-9 months of his resignation/termination. Defendant's evidence:
9 Defendant has examined Subhash Arora as DW-1 who tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon documents i.e. Board Resolution Ex.DW1/1, Appointment letter dated 20.08.2012 already exhibited Ex.PW1/1, Copy of email dated 28.02.2013 Ex.DW1/3, email dated 29.03.2013 Ex.DW1/4, email dated 11.04.2013 Ex.DW1/5(colly), email dated 15.04.2013 Ex.DW1/6(colly), email dated 18.03.2013 Ex. DW1/7(colly) email dated 26.04.2013 Ex.DW1/8(colly), email dated 27.04.2013 Ex.DW1/9 (colly), email dated 09.05.2013 Ex. DW1/10, email dated 26.06.2013 Ex.DW1/11 (colly), email dated 14.08.2013 Ex.DW1/12(colly), email dated 16.08.2013 Ex.
CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 9/16 DW1/13(colly), email dated 17.08.2013 Ex. DW1/14(colly), email dated 19.08.2013 Ex.DW1/15(colly), email dated 23.08.2013 is Ex.DW1/16, email dated 26.08.2013 Ex. DW1/17, email dated 29.08.2013 Ex. DW1/18, email dated 02.09.2013 Ex.DW1/9(colly), email dated 03.09.2013 is Ex.DW1/20(colly), email dated 13.09.2013 Ex.DW1/21, email dated 07.10.2013 Ex.DW1/22(colly), email dated 10.10.2013 Ex.DW1/23(colly).
Findings
10. I have heard arguments and considered the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1:
Whether plaintiff has suppressed vital and material facts from this court? OPD 1 & 2
11. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. As per the defendants, the plaintiff has suppressed the vital and material facts. It is the claim of defendants that the plaintiff was never diligent in his duties, and he used to report to his duty usually late, and he used to remain absent from work, and also used to leave the office without any intimation prior to office hours. It is further stated that the plaintiff was in contact with the erstwhile employees of defendant no. 1, who had started their own business in the same field, in which defendant no.1 was involved and the plaintiff shared the confidential information of defendant no.1 with such ex- employees for ulterior motives. It is further the claim that, despite warnings, plaintiff used to visit passport office to attend and assist his personal clients during officers. It is further claim of defendants that plaintiff was very negligent to pursue his task, and the CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 10/16 same caused huge losses to defendant no.1. It is further claimed on behalf of defendants that yearly review of service of the plaintiff was also far below the standard of his job profile and from time to time, warnings and reminders were issued to the plaintiff, but to no avail and thereafter, defendant no.1 initiated the proceedings to terminate the services of the plaintiff. It is further stated that when plaintiff realized that the job profile he had taken is beyond his capabilities and expertise, he tendered his resignation on 07.10.2013 and consequently, his services were terminated on the same date. It is further the claim of defendant no.1 that it is in fact entitled to receive Rs.13,468/- from the plaintiff. Defendants have placed on record various emails, wherein reminders/ warnings were given to the plaintiff, and in one of the email plaintiff has himself admitted his mistake. In one of the email dated 07.10.2013 sent at 1:36 PM Ex.DW-1/22 it is mentioned on part of defendant no.1 that the payments under four heads from the four agents were not received from the plaintiff for which plaintiff is responsible to clear the outstanding. And since the plaintiff did not clear the said outstanding payments from various agents, as per the company's norms, against the negligence of responsibility, the salary for September 2013, i.e. Rs. 38,400/- and salary of October, 2013 i.e. Rs.9,339/- were adjusted. Subsequent to that email, the plaintiff sent his resignation on the same date at 6:27 PM. In the said email nothing is mentioned by the plaintiff regarding his liability under the 4 heads, which are mentioned on part of defendant no.1 in the email Ex. DW1/22. This fact clearly suggests that the plaintiff had liability to make the payments under the said heads to defendant no.1. In view of the various emails placed on record by the defendants, it can be safely concluded that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. Thus, the present issue is CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 11/16 decided against the plaintiff, and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE No.5:
Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of salary? OPP
12. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff his termination from the services by the defendant company, should be declared void ab initio, inoperative and contrary to the terms of appointment. The appointment letter exhibit PW-1/1 is placed on record by the plaintiff, wherein, as per clause 3.3 company, defendant no.1 had right to terminate the employment of the plaintiff without notice, or payment of salary, in lieu thereof, if the plaintiff commits any breach of his duties and responsibilities, under the contract of service, or, in case he is guilty of any gross default or misconduct, which amounts the express or implied condition of his employment. As for the defendants the plaintiff was not fit and capable person for the job profile for which he was selected as he was very negligent to pursue the tasks, and had caused huge losses to defendant no.1. As per the defendant no.1, the overall behaviour of the plaintiff with management and his co-employees was also very bad and the yearly review of service of the plaintiff, with defendant number one, was also for far below, the standard of his job profile. It is further stated that several warnings and reminders were issued by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff time to time, but the plaintiff did not mend his ways. Thereafter, defendant no.1 initiated the proceedings to terminate the services of the plaintiff on the ground of "breach of duties". It is also claimed that when the plaintiff realised about the same, that he is not capable to perform as per his job profile, he CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 12/16 tendered his resignation on 07.10.2013 and consequently, his services were terminated on the same date itself. Defendant no.1 has placed on record the various emails including Ex.DW-1/23(colly) showing that various reminders were given to the plaintiff with respect to his duties, and in one of his email dated 27.04.2013, he had accepted his mistake and gave assurance for not repeating the same. Emails exhibit DW1/8 (colly) and mark D5 show that the performance of plaintiff was not up to Mark. Email exhibit DW1/12 also shows the default/ delay in performance on part of the plaintiff. Email dated 17.08.2013 also shows that warning towards non-performance was given. Similarly, email dated 03.09.2013, exhibit DW-1/20 also shows the warning given to the plaintiff. Considering the various emails placed on record by the defendants to show the conduct of the plaintiff towards his duties, it cannot be said that the services of the plaintiff got terminated by defendant no.1 without any a reason or arbitrarily or by not following the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. Considering the various emails placed on record by a defendant no.1 it can be safely held that, the termination of services of the plaintiff, by defendant no.1 were as per the clause 3.3 of the appointment letter. Accordingly, the termination of the plaintiff from the services by defendant no.1 cannot be held to be void ab initio and inoperative or contrary to the terms of the appointment. Thus, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.2:
Whether there is no cause of action against defendants? OPD 1 & 2
13. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. Since the issue number 5 has been decided against the plaintiff, and he is held not CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 13/16 entitled for decree of declaration. and mandatory injunction against the defendant no.1, with respect to his termination by defendant no.1, present issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.3:
Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant No.2 as a party to the suit? OPD 1 & 2
14. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. As per the defendants, defendant no.2 has no role with respect to the employment of plaintiff with defendant no.1 and thus, the present suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant no. 2 as party to the suit. Plaintiff during cross examination, admitted that defendant no.2 was the vice president of defendant no.1 and he was also employee of defendant no.1. He also admitted that no individual or personal transaction or dealing or relation had ever been between him and the defendant no.2. He also admitted that his dues are only against defendant no.1 and impleading of defendant no.2 in the present suit was not correct. He further stated that, since defendant no. 2 was harassing him during his service, he was made party to the suit. Considering the admission on part of plaintiff himself that defended no.1 was the employer of defendant no. 2 also and that plaintiff had no individual or personal transaction with the defendant no.2, thus, the present suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant no.2. Thus, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.4 Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages? If Yes, how much? OPP CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 14/16
15. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed damages from the defendant no.1 to the tune of Rs. 88,000/- with respect to his previous salary and for the notice period. He has also sought damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs towards illegal and wrongful termination, and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental suffering and harassment. Plaintiff has not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate his claim with respect to the damages towards his illegal termination and for his Mental harassment. Further, since the issue no.5 has already been decided against the plaintiff, and it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as sought by him with respect to determination of his services, thus, the defendant cannot be held entitled for damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs for his illegal and wrongful termination. Regarding the damages on account of mental suffering and harassment, no cogent evidence is adduced by the plaintiff. Further, since issue no.5 has already been decided against the plaintiff, he cannot be held, entitled to claim any damages, for mental sufferings, and harassment on account of his termination, from services, by defendant no.1. With respect to the claim of the plaintiff for the amount of Rs. 88,000/- it is contended on part of the defendants that vide email dated 07.10.2013, it was told to the plaintiff that he was supposed to make payment under four heads regarding the 04 different agents and he was supposed to clear the outstanding amount. After this plaintiff in his email of the same date tendered his resignation and did not mention anything about the outstanding amount as mentioned in the email Ex.DW-1/22. In the said email it is also mentioned that the outstanding amount shall be adjusted from his salary for month of September 2013 i.e. Rs. 38,400/- and of October 2013 i.e. Rs. 9,339/-. Considering the communication CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 15/16 between the parties by way of email as well the fact that the services of the plaintiff were terminated due to breach of duties under the clause 3.3 so that defendant no.1 was not liable to pay any salary of notice period, it is held that the defendant no.1 was not liable to pay for Rs.88,000/- to the plaintiff. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Relief
16. In view of above discussed facts, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order is passed with respect to the cost.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Announced in the open Court
on 27th March, 2026) Digitally signed
by MEENU
MEENU KAUSHIK
Date:
KAUSHIK 2026.03.27
17:12:24
+0530
(Meenu Kaushik)
District Judge-03
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District
New Delhi
CS No. 56837/2016 Manish Mittal Vs. Udaan India Pvt. Ltd. Pages 16/16