Delhi District Court
Shakir vs Pankaj Kumar Jeenwal And Ors on 14 February, 2025
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA MADAAN, CIVIL
JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, DELHI
Case No. : CS SCJ 1118/18
CNR No. : DLST03-001894-2018
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. SHAKIR
Proprietor of ZAARA Enterprises,
At L-1, 12/642, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi -62 .............. Plaintiff
Versus
1. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL,
S/o Prabhu ,
R/o B-44 Duggal Colony,
Devli Road, New Delhi-110062.
2. SURESH,
S/o Ram Dhan,
R/o L-1 Street No. 2.
House No.-2650/93, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi -110062
3. MUKESH KUMAR
S/o RAM DHAN.
R/o L-1 Street No. 2.
H.No. 2650/93, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi -110062
4. SABIR ALI,
S/O Mohammad Abdulla,
R/O Gram Rasulur Nagla.
Bijnor -246736, U.P.
5. MD. RAIS AHMAD
S/O Habeeb Ahmad
R/O 107, Salamullaganj PU 0,
Anubagh-2, Sandi, Hardoi,
Uttar Pradesh Digitally signed
by deeksha
deeksha madaan
Date:
madaan 2025.02.14
16:38:10
(Deeksha Madaan), +0530
Civil Judge-02(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
14.02.2025 (Page 1 of 26)
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
6. M/S SUNLIGHT DECORE
THROUGH ITS PARTNER
B-44, 1st Floor, Duggal Colony,
Khanpur, New Delhi -110062 ............Defendants
****
SUIT FOR PERMANENT and MANDATORY INJUNCTION
****
Date of Institution of suit : 04.12.2018
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 16.12.2024, 21.12.2024
& 16.01.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 14.02.2025.
****
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. By way of this suit, the plaintiffs have prayed for:
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, their family members, agents, nominees, attorneys, servants etc. thereby restraining them from using the plaintiff's documents, data, information, clients profile, blank letterheads, invoices, etc
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, their family members, agents, nominees, attorneys, servants etc. thereby restraining them from spreading false rumours about the plaintiff and its firm; Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2025.02.14 Civil Judge-02(South) 16:38:14 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 2 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, their family members, agents, nominees. attorneys, servants etc. thereby restraining them operating business in the name of defendant no.6 or similar to the plaintiff's business;
d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, their family members, agents, nominees, attorneys, servants etc. thereby restraining them from visiting the sites where work of plaintiff is in progress and contacting the plaintiff's clients in any manner;
e) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, their family members, agents, nominees, attorneys, servants etc. thereby restraining them from misusing official numbers and/or contacting the plaintiff's client;
f) Pass a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants, directing them to handover all the official documents. ongoing project documents along with the bills of the projects, all the account records and other valuable documents of the firm including the client's details, contact information, etc;
PLAINT
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is proprietor of Zaara Enterprises, having its office at L-1 Digitally signed by (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha madaan madaan Date:
Saket Courts, New Delhi 2025.02.14
16:38:18
14.02.2025 (Page 3 of 26) +0530
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
12/642, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062 which is a registered proprietorship firm vide registration No. 07BQNPS3470EIZK and is engaged in the business of providing interiors for the Maruti Showrooms all over India and is authorized to provide materials to Maruti.
3. That the defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 are the employees of the plaintiff who are working since long. The defendant no. 1 and 4 are working as a site engineers and defendant no. 2 is working as an accountant in the firm. The defendants due to long association with the plaintiff gained his trust and confidence.
4. That defendant no. 2 had joined the plaintiff's firm as an accountant on 09.06.2016 and therefore, he gave a hand written letter dated 09.06.2016 to the plaintiff and took an oath that there would not be any act due to which plaintiff's firm will suffer any monetary loss and any kind of loss of goodwill and in case during his working period, if firm finds any kind of miss-management of data, theft, contacting to any party/vendor of the plaintiff's firm or any other act which can affect the reputation of the plaintiff's firm then the plaintiff has a right/power to recover all the losses caused from the defendant no. 2.
5. That the defendant no.5 who is an ex-employee and was working as supervisor sought financial assistance for meeting some personal exigencies which was extended by Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2025.02.14 Civil Judge-02(South) 16:38:22 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 4 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
the plaintiff by giving a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as loan to him. The defendant no.5 although promised to return the said amount, however, by his subsequent conduct, it was apparent that the promises and assurances made by the defendant no.5 was complete sham and bogus and with a view to cheat and defraud the plaintiff.
6. It is alleged that defendant no.5 during one assignment of Maruti at Lucknow during year 2017 started using/stealing plaintiffs material for his own use and even used the plaintiffs employees at site for his personal gains and, therefore, caused wrongful loss to plaintiff. Said fact came to the notice of plaintiff in April 2018 during the scrutiny of job cards of workers and it was revealed by workers that they were working in the month of March 2018 in defendant's home and had done all kitchen work, tiles work, wooden work, doors, bed including MS work. It is alleged that said work was done without the consent of plaintiff and was worth more than Rs.8 lacs. Thereafter, defendant no.5 started extending threats and stopped coming to office. It is further alleged that defendant no.5 was provided one Sim card bearing number 8130733529 and misused this number and spread wrong and false information/rumour regarding the plaintiff firm in order to lower its reputation and complaints were made against defendant no.5 with Police Authorities, however no action has been taken till date.
Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2025.02.14 (Deeksha Madaan), 16:38:27 +0530 Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 5 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
7. It is further alleged that defendant no.1 also had taken personal loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from firm but the same had not been returned. It is further alleged that defendant no.1 & 4 were also provided advance expenses for the site work but they neither handed over the details of pending work nor they have given site billings.
8. It is further alleged that defendant no.2 was found working on his personal laptop on 01.11.2018 instead of desktop provided by firm. It is alleged that defendant no.2 was sending all the data, BOQ, previous clients list, current clients billing information on the official email id [email protected] of one company named M/s Sunlight Decore / defendant no.6. It is further alleged that defendant no.5 in connivance with defendant no.1 & 4 send an email dated 09.10.2018 from an email id to plaintiffs client named Vipul Motors attaching the Vipul Motors true value BOQ on email id [email protected]@vipulmotors.com, [email protected].
9. It is further alleged that plaintiff found one partnership deed dated 01.07.2018 between defendant no.1 & 3, both held to be the Managing Partners of defendant no.6 and bears signatures of defendant no.2 as one of the witnesses. Plaintiff also found one rent agreement dated 09.10.2018 in the laptop of defendant no.2, as per which Md Shadik and defendant no.6 entered into a rent agreement whereby Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan Date:
(Deeksha Madaan), madaan 2025.02.14 16:38:30 Civil Judge-02(South) +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 6 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
defendant no.6 took property no.544/1464, 1* Floor, Campel Road, Kanheya Madhav Ward Baraura Hussain Bari LKO T-C-IP22, Lucknow UP on monthly rent of Rs.3000/- for a period from 09.10.2018 to 08.08.2019.
10.It is alleged that defendants have stolen the plaintiff firm's quotation and sent the same at lowest price to its client. It is alleged that defendants in connivance with each other committed cheating and forged the documents and gained unlawfully and caused immense loss of business and profits and caused serious damage to plaintiffs firm and reputation.
11.As per plaintiff, the defendants travelled to the working sites of plaintiff and cut short the bills of plaintiff. The defendants have done the work of without client plaintiff's any permission/information to the plaintiff and thereby getting illegal gains to the detriment of plaintiff. Various e- mails were exchanged between defendants and the plaintiff's client sharing plaintiff firms information. When the defendants were caught they acknowledged their fault and executed written document dated 01.11.2018 whereby defendant no.1 and 2 admitted that they have misused the plaintiffs information, data and undertook not to repeat the same in future. The defendants have conspired to gain unlawfully by illegally obtaining the plaintiff firms record, client, quotations etc. and by forging plaintiff's letter heads, bills etc. Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2025.02.14 16:38:35 (Deeksha Madaan), +0530 Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 7 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
12. That the defendants on being caught by the plaintiff also acknowledged their faults and executed documents in writing vide hand written letter dated 01.11.2018 whereby defendant no.1 and 2 specifically undertaken that they have misused the plaintiff's information, data and documents and undertaken not to repeat their misdeeds in future.
13. That the plaintiff being afraid of the defendants again made detailed complaint to police i.e. SHO, PS Neb Sarai vide DD No.20B dated 26.11.2018, and Commissioner of Police vide complaint dated 26.11.2018, however, till date neither any FIR is registered nor any action has been taken by the police.
14. That after few days from 01.11.2018, the defendant no.1, 2 and 4 have stopped coming to plaintiff's firm but have various documents, data and information pertaining to various clients and business activities of the plaintiff and there is every likelihood that the defendants may misuse the said documents, data and information to achieve their ulterior designs. Further, the defendants have various information of the ongoing work at different sites besides having the files of the work and billing documents.
15. That there is a voice recording between plaintiff and the defendants wherein the defendants acknowledged their fault and undertaken not to repeat the same in future. It is stated that the same can be produced before the Hon'ble Court, as Digitally signed deeksha by deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date: 2025.02.14 16:38:38 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 8 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
and when required. Thus, it is incumbent that the defendants be forthwith restraint from misusing the plaintiff's documents, data, information, clients, letterheads. invoices, etc and contacting any of the plaintiff's clients to gain unlawfully and to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff.
16. That the defendants have committed offences of cheating, theft, forgery. criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. Further, the defendants are also spreading false rumors about the plaintiff and now the plaintiff has genuine apprehension that they may misuse the office information and documents to gain unlawfully and cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff. Thus, it is incumbent that restrain orders be passed against the defendants and from directly or indirectly affecting the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff firm.
17. That the cause of action for filing of the present suit arose on 01.11.2018 when the plaintiff came to know that the defendants in connivance with each other opened a company in the name of defendant no.6. The cause of action further arose when the defendants stole the plaintiff's information and documents. The cause of action further arose when the defendants vanished without information, consent or knowledge of the plaintiff from the office. The cause of action further arose on 26.11.2018 when the plaintiff made complaint to police. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing in favour of the Plaintiff and Digitally signed by deeksha (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha madaan madaan Date:
Civil Judge-02(South) 2025.02.14
16:38:43
Saket Courts, New Delhi +0530
14.02.2025 (Page 9 of 26)
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
against the Defendants, as the Defendants are continuously causing loss of goodwill and reputation.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
18.After institution of the suit, summons were issued to defendants who appeared before the court after service and filed their WS.
19.The defendants have contended in their joint WS that under the grab of injunction, the plaintiff intends to deprive the defendants of their right to livelihood. It is mentioned that defendants were never the employees of plaintiff and they were working as free lancers. It is further submitted that no appointment letter was given to the defendants and no salary slip was issued. It is submitted that plaintiff has filed false complaint and suit against them to avoid paying their dues whereas plaintiff has to pay total of Rs.3,41,117/-to all the defendants towards their professional charges. As per defendants when they started pressurizing the plaintiff for their payments he filed present suit and false complaints. It is submitted that defendants with a view to expand their work participated in tenders for various companies, in their personal capacity and they got the work in some companies as their quotation was the lowest. This irked the plaintiff and he started considering defendants as his business rivals.
20.It is submitted that defendant no.2 was forced to write a back dated letter dated 01.11.2018 by mentioning the date on letter as 09.06.2016. The defendant no.2 was threatened Digitally (Deeksha Madaan), signed by deeksha deeksha madaan Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date:
2025.02.14 Saket Courts, New Delhi 16:38:46 +0530 14.02.2025 (Page 10 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
of dire consequences and therefore said letter was written. However, defendant no.2 had lodged a written complaint with the police on 12.11.2018 regarding the same. It is submitted that defendant no.5 was not an employee of Zara Enterprises and the allegation regarding loan of Rs.3.5 lakh is false. It is further denied that defendant no.5 stole the material of plaintiff or used the employees of plaintiff for his personal use. It is submitted that work at the site of Maruti was not completed in February, 2018 as some finishing work was remaining. The plaintiff asked the defendants to complete the said work after February, 2018 so that Maruti officials are satisfied with the work. Hence, the entire labour and material was used at the site office only by the defendants. It is submitted that defendant no.5 neither got his house constructed nor renovated and plaintiff has made false allegations regarding work worth more than Rs.8 lakhs being done at the house of defendant no.5. It is denied that defendant no.5 has spread any false rumours to lower the reputation of plaintiff. It is submitted that the SIM card bearing no. 8130733529 was returned to the plaintiff by defendant no.5 after completion of the assignment with Maruti. It is submitted that rather plaintiff has started spreading false rumours through e-mail to the Maruti Suzuki India limited, DS group and others alleging that defendant no.5 is committing offences of cheating, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
21.It is further denied that defendant no.1 has taken any loan of Rs.1.5 lakh or the defendant no.1 and 4 were provided any (Deeksha Madaan), Digitally signed by Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha Saket Courts, New Delhi deeksha madaan madaan Date:
14.02.2025 (Page 11 of 26) 2025.02.14 16:38:50 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
advance for the site work. It is submitted that during tenure of his assignment defendant no.1 met with an accident with his car near Luknow on 17.07.2018 and therefore an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh was given by the plaintiff for repairing the vehicle but was not given towards alleged loan. It is also denied that defendant no.1 and 4 did not give site billing, cash expenses details etc. for the last three months. It is denied that defendant no.2 along with defendant no.1 and 4 was misusing the e-mail of plaintiff. It is submitted that defendant no.2 was working as freelancer and since the desktop was not upto date and further defendant no.2 had to go to different places, he always carried out his work in laptop. It is submitted that company i.e. defendant no.6 was formed with plaintiff's instructions to carry out assignment throughout India and at the same time another company namely "Stark Entrepreneur Private Limited" as formed by plaintiff in partnership with defendant no.2. Therefore, defendants along with plaintiff synchronized all the data between each of the company with the instruction and knowledge of plaintiff. It is submitted that property on rent was taken by defendant no.6 with the consent and knowledge of plaintiff and even the plaintiff was instrumental and helped the defendants in getting the property on rent. It is denied that defendants had stole the letter head of Zara Enterprises or they travelled to the working sites of the plaintiff at Chindwada. It is submitted that defendants visited only the sites where they were working and that too with consent of plaintiff. In regard to Digitally signed (Deeksha Madaan), by deeksha Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha madaan Saket Courts, New Delhi madaan Date:
2025.02.14 14.02.2025 (Page 12 of 26) 16:38:55 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
e-mails between the defendants and the plaintiff clients, it is submitted that said e-mails were exchanged in ordinary course of work on behalf of plaintiff by the defendants and there was no personal gains to defendants. It is submitted that the data (bill of quantity) of floor, tiles material, wooden plyboards, paint materials was not a document of secretive nature and the documents are open to all. It is submitted that defendants do not have any data, documents and information of plaintiffs firm and they have already handed over everything to plaintiffs firm on 12.11.2018. The defendants have never misused such documents in past nor they intend to use the same in future. Accordingly, it is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff shall be dismissed.
REPLICATION
22.Replication on behalf of the plaintiff was filed to the WS filed on behalf of the defendants in which the plaintiff has denied the contentions of the defendants.
ISSUES
23. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial on 14.01.2020:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for in Clause A,B,C,D, E of prayer clause? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of injunction, as prayed for in clause F of prayer clause? OPP. (3) Whether the plaintiff is barred under section 41 (h) (i) Digitally signed deeksha by deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date: 2025.02.14 16:38:58 +0530 Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 13 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
of Specific Relief Act, as alleged? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts, as alleged? OPD (5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued, as alleged? OPD.
(6) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF
24.Plaintiff, in support of his case, has examined five witnesses. He has placed on record his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents:
S.No. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Registration Certificate of deponent firm namely Zaara Enterprises
2. Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) Copy of Salary sheet of defendant no. 1, 2 & 4 (Colly from page 52 to 57).
3. Ex.PW1/3 (OSR). Hand Written Letter dated 09.06.2016
4. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) Complaint dated 25.06.2018 (Colly) having DD no. 16B to SHO PS Neb Sarai
5. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR). Complaint dated 29.06.2018 having DD no. 47B to SHO PS Neb Sarai
6. Ex.PW1/6 (OSR). Complaint dated 30.06.2018 to DCP South, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
7. Ex.PW1/7 (OSR). Complaint dated 05.07.2018 to Commissioner of Police (HQs) ITO, New Delhi (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha Saket Courts, New Delhi madaan 14.02.2025 (Page 14 of 26) Digitally signed by deeksha madaan Date: 2025.02.14 16:39:03 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
8. Ex.PW1/8 (Colly Email exchanged between the page no. 41 to 46). defendants and deponents clients
9. Ex.PW1/9 (colly. Email sent by defendant no. 5 to 10 pages) deponents client namely Vipul Motors
10. Ex.PW1/10 Authorization Letter dated 09.10.2018 of defendant no. 6 accepted by defendant no. 1 as Authorized Signatory having signature of defendant no. 1 at point A.
11. Ex.PW1/11 (Colly Partnership deed defendants no. 5 pages). 1 & 3 dated 01.07.2018 alongwith cancelled Cheque bearing no. 000001 issued by defendant no. 6
12. Ex.PW1/12. Rent Agreement between Md.
Shadiq, S/o Late Modh. Farooq and defendant no. 6 dated 09.10.2018
13. Ex.PW1/13 (Colly Air Ticket dated 27.06.2018 of 4 pages). defendant no. 5 booked by defendant no. 1
14. Ex.PW1/14 (Colly Whatsapp chat between 6 pages). defendant no. 2 & 4 with regards to deponent's firm information
15. Ex.PW1/15 Hand Written acceptance letter (OSR). signed by defendant no. 1 dated 01.11.2018
16. Ex.PW1/16 (OSR) Hand Written acceptance letter (Colly 11 pages signed by defendant no. 2 dated From 59 to 69) 01.11.2018
17. Ex.PW1/17 Complaint dated 26.11.2018 (OSR). having DD no. 20B to SHO PS Neb Sarai
18. Ex.PW1/18 Complaint dated 26.11.2018 to (OSR). Commissioner of Police (HQs) (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Digitally Saket Courts, New Delhi signed by deeksha deeksha madaan 14.02.2025 (Page 15 of 26) madaan Date:
2025.02.14 16:39:07 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
ITO, New Delhi
19. Ex.PW1/19. Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act
25. The said witness was duly cross-examined by respective Counsels for defendants.
26.PW2 HC Surender from PS Neb Sarai has placed on record relevant pages of roznamcha mentioning the complaint dated 25.06.2018 vide DD No. 16B, complaint dated 29.06.2018 vide DD No. 47B and complaint dated 26.11.2018 vide DD No. 20B as Ex.PW2/A (OSR) to Ex.PW2/C (OSR). The said witness has stated that the original complaints have been destroyed as per the instructions received from the DCP concerned dated 24.05.2023, copy of which is Ex.PW2/D.
27.PW 3 SI Dalip, Record Clerk from Commissioner of Police brought the complaint diary register for the period 2018 and placed on record copy of relevant entries of complaint dated 05.07.2018 and 26.11.2018 filed by Ashlam Saifi and Shakir received in the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and sent to joint CP, Southern Range vide diary no. 6230 and 10993.
28.PW 4 Mohd. Arif filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A wherein he has stated that he is the company secretary in the plaintiff firm and he manages the complete accounts department, projects management, planning and (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Saket Courts, New Delhi Digitally signed by 14.02.2025 (Page 16 of 26) deeksha madaan Date: 2025.02.14 16:39:11 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
strategy, advertisement and marketing etc of plaintiff firm. He stated that defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 were employees of plaintiff company. He stated that the plaintiff company had given financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lakh to defendant no. 5 and he failed to repay the said loan and caused cheating and fraud with the company and the company filed a criminal complaint against all the defendants and in that complaint, the plaintiff company had filed bank statement of HDFC, E-143, Branch, Saket showing that on 08.03.2017, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs were transferred to defendant no. 5 and further remaining amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs were given by way of cash. In the year 2017, the plaintiff company came to know that the defendant no. 5 has misused his position in committing fraud with the company and few workers told the plaintiff company that they were working in the month of March 2018 in the defendant's home and thus, he caused loss of Rs. 8 lakhs to the company. The company provided a sim card for office use, however, after leaving the company, defendant no. 5 misused the number which had the numbers of all the clients of the firm. Thereafter, the company got blocked the number on 01.06.2018 and filed various complaints. He stated that the plaintiff company maintains the ESIC and EPF register for employees and mark their attendance in the said register. The witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
29.PW 5 Sh. Neeraj Kumar Kanojia has filed his evidence by Digitally signed by (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha deeksha madaan Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date:
Saket Courts, New Delhi 2025.02.14
16:39:15
14.02.2025 (Page 17 of 26)
+0530
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/A and he stated that he was working on the 'Kamthi Motors Project' at Chhindwara on behalf of the plaintiff company and at the said project, defendant no. 2 was working as an accountant, defendant no.5 as a supervisor and defendant no.1 was working as the main engineer for Kamthi Motors Project. He stated that they had completed the project well in time, however, at the time of finalization of bill amount, various objections were raised stating that the quality of paint job, damage/scratched titles, fixing and fitting were not upto the Maruti Suzuki's standard and his company had to incur huge losses as the client had deducted Rs. 25 lakhs from the total billing and further, as a result, plaintiff company was not given any future project by Kamathi Motors. The witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness and PE was closed on 09.09.2024.
DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE
30. No DE was led on behalf of the defendants and the same was closed vide order dated 24.10.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
31.I have heard the counsels for plaintiff and defendants who argued as per their pleadings and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the plaintiff as well as defendant no.
1 to 6. The same have also been perused. Digitally
signed by
deeksha
deeksha madaan
madaan Date:
2025.02.14
16:39:21
(Deeksha Madaan), +0530
Civil Judge-02(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
14.02.2025 (Page 18 of 26)
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
DECISION AND REASONING THEREOF
32.My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1 and 2 :
33.For the sake of expediency, both these issues will be collectively addressed and resolved. The burden to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff.
34.The plaintiff has mentioned defendant no.1, 2 and 4 as his employees and defendant no.5 as the ex employee. However, the said defendants have denied such relationship between the parties and it is mentioned that they were working as free lancers. The plaintiff has not filed appointment letter or salary slip of any of the defendants along with the plaint or even with the replication. Copy of wages register which is Ex.PW1/2 has been filed regarding month of September, 2018. Though it mentions name of defendant no.1, 2 and 4 but does not give any detail of their PF number or the insurance number or their designation etc. unlike some other employees mentioned in said register. Even during final arguments, query was raised by this court regarding the said difference, to the counsel for the plaintiff, however, no satisfactory reply was given by the counsel for the plaintiff regarding the same. Thus, even if said document is considered genuine, the said defendants appear to be contractual employees only. PW1 in his cross- examination dated 16.02.2023 has stated that he cannot recall whether he has issued any appointment letter/offer letter to defendant no.4. It is stated in the cross examination Digitally signed by (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha deeksha madaan Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date:
2025.02.14 Saket Courts, New Delhi 16:39:26 +0530 14.02.2025 (Page 19 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
of PW1 dated 06.09.2023 that the defendant no.5 was employee of the plaintiff firm around 2015 to 2016, however, he cannot tell the exact time period. He has further stated that he even does not remember the exact year till which defendant no. 5 was employed in his company. He has stated it to be correct that he has not placed on record the salary slip of defendant no.5. Thus, there is no material whatsoever on record to show that the defendant no. 5 was an employee of the plaintiff firm. Defendant no. 3 is stated to be brother of defendant no. 2. In his cross examination dated 27.02.2024, PW1 stated that defendant no. 3 never worked in the plaintiff firm. Defendant no. 6 is stated to be another firm. Hence, the pre-requisite of the defendants being employees of the plaintiff firm for the plaintiff to seek the relief of injunction against them in the nature as prayed has not been proved on record.
35.The plaintiff has relied upon a handwritten letter Ex.PW1/3 dated 09.06.2016 given by defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff firm at the time of his joining. The defendant no. 2 has stated that the said letter was given under threat and coercion. Be that as it may, the perusal of such letter, even if the same is taken at face value, shows that it only concerns with the right of the plaintiff firm to recover any kind of losses suffered by the said firm on account of any act of the defendant no.2. Thus, the said letter is not akin to an employment letter enlisting any details of any non disclosure clauses or notice period or bar of working Digitally (Deeksha Madaan), signed by deeksha Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha madaan madaan Date:
Saket Courts, New Delhi 2025.02.14
16:39:31
14.02.2025 (Page 20 of 26) +0530
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
elsewhere etc and is merely in the nature of an indemnity whereby the plaintiff firm would be at liberty to recover losses from any act of Defendant no.2, however, this suit has not been preferred for recovery of any kind of losses and hence, the said letter is in no way relevant for the present suit.
36. Further, it is plaintiff's own case that even defendant no.1, 2 and 4 have stopped coming to the plaintiff's firm since about 01.11.2018. Thus, the said defendants are in no manner associated with the plaintiff firm as on 01.11.2018.
37.Proceeding further, the plaintiff has mentioned about various loan defaults by defendants or misuse of his worker/material by them but none of those provide a cause of action for injunctions prayed and only provide a ground for recovery to plaintiff. In regard to future acts, various injunctions have been sought by the plaintiff but main injunction sought is that defendants shall be restrained from operating business in the name of defendant no.6 or from operating similar business as to that of plaintiff. However, as already noted above, no employment contract has been filed or even pleaded wherein after leaving the service of the plaintiff the employees cannot do similar or same work. Even otherwise, as per section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 such contracts are void.
38.Further, in his replication the plaintiff has admitted that the Digitally signed by deeksha (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha madaan Date:
Civil Judge-02(South) madaan 2025.02.14 16:39:36 Saket Courts, New Delhi +0530 14.02.2025 (Page 21 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
company 'Stark Enterpreneur India Ltd.' was made by plaintiff in partnership with defendant no.2. However, it is not explained as to why said company was formed. Hence, it is doubtful that said firm can be restrained to carry on competing work, on the ground that its inception by the employers of plaintiff was against the contract of their employment. Further, even the partnership deed of the said firm which is Ex.PW1/11 shows that the same is between defendant no. 1 and 3 and the execution of said document has been admitted during tendering of evidence by Defendant no.1 and 2, however, defendant no. 1 and 2 denied their signatures on the said document at MARK A and MARK B respectively. However, as already noted, defendant no.3 is not an employee of the plaintiff firm and defendant no.1 has not stood proved on record as an employee of the plaintiff firm who was restrained to enter into any such business. Moreover, the date of deed is shown as 01.07.2018 and it has not been shown that the defendant no.1 or defendant no. 3 who are the partners of the said partnership firm as per the deed Ex.PW1/11 were the employees of the plaintiff during the said time period. Only a letter of 09.06.2016 of defendant no. 2 which is Ex.PW1/3 is placed on record to show the employment of the said defendant and wages slip of defendant no. 1 , 2 and 4 for the month of September 2018 has been placed. The defendants in their reply have stated that they were working as free lancers in the plaintiff firm and the said partnership was also constituted under the instructions of the plaintiff firm and Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2025.02.14 Civil Judge-02(South) 16:39:40 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2025 (Page 22 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
another partnership 'Stark Enterpreneur India Ltd.' was also created which already has been observed above that no satisfactory explanation for the same has been given by the plaintiff.
39.The plaintiff has also sought injunction against the defendants from spreading false rumours about the plaintiff and its firm. However, it is nowhere stated as to what rumours are being spread and therefore no cause is made out to grant such vague injunction.
40.Further, injunction have been sought against the defendants from visiting the sites where work of plaintiff is in progress and from contacting the plaintiff clients in any manner. However, neither the details of any such sites have been mentioned, moreover, in view of the aforesaid provision of section 27, no such order can be passed against the ex- workers.
41. The plaintiff has further sought injunction regarding misusing of the official numbers but no such numbers have been disclosed except one SIM number and as per plaintiff's own case said number has been gotten blocked. Further, PW 1 in his cross examination dated 27.02.2024 stated that he does not know as to who is using this number at present. He stated that may be someone from his office may be using such number or it may be switched off. PW4 also stated that the said number is being used by one of their employees.
Digitally
signed by
deeksha
deeksha madaan
(Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2025.02.14
Civil Judge-02(South) 16:39:44
+0530
Saket Courts, New Delhi
14.02.2025 (Page 23 of 26)
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
Accordingly, no injunction order can be granted without furnishing the details of the official numbers still in operation.
42.Further, plaintiff has sought injunction for handing over all the official documents, ongoing project documents along with the bill of the projects, all the accounts record and other valuable documents of the plaintiff firm. However, said prayer is also non specific without mentioning the specific documents, details of ongoing project etc. It is also mentioned that injunction be granted for using blank letter head of the plaintiff firm by the defendants, however, it has not stood proved on record by the plaintiff that the defendants are having any such blank letter head of the plaintiff firm. Further, even no specific complaint of misuse of any such letter head is placed and proved on record. Hence, no such relief can be granted.
43.The plaintiff has examined PW2 and PW3 for proving certain complaints made to the police, however, such complaints are in no way proof of facts of the plaint which had to prove on the basis of material on record for the relief of injunction as prayed, however, for the reasons which are already discussed above, the injunction is prayed cannot be granted when firstly the relationship of plaintiff with defendants being their employees has not stood proved, any specific contract of employment putting any restraints have also not stood proved, even the emails which are Ex.PW1/8, Digitally signed by deeksha (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha madaan Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date:
2025.02.14 Saket Courts, New Delhi 16:39:48 +0530 14.02.2025 (Page 24 of 26) CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
Ex.PW1/9 and Whatsapp chats Ex.PW1/14 do not show any confidential information or trade secretes being divulged. Further, as already noted, since the defendants are in no way associated with the plaintiff firm in any manner as on 01.11.2018, no such injunction in restraint of trade can be passed against them, as has been prayed. Even though in the tendering of evidence, PW1 stated that Ex.PW1/14 is the Whatsapp chats between defendant no. 2 and 4 with regards to plaintiff firm, however, in his cross-examination dated 16.02.2023, he stated that Ex.PW1/14 is the communication done by defendant no. 4 with plaintiff. Thus, it has not stood proved on record that the defendants has misused any document or data of the plaintiff firm in contravention of their contract of employment. Thus, as such no injunction as prayed can be granted.
44.Accordingly, both the issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE No. 3 & 445.The defendants have not led any evidence nor have addressed any arguments on the said issues. Accordingly, the said issues are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 546.The defendants have argued that the plaintiff for claiming relief of return of documents was to seek the same in proper Digitally signed by deeksha (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha madaan madaan Date:
Civil Judge-02(South) 2025.02.14
16:39:51
Saket Courts, New Delhi +0530
14.02.2025 (Page 25 of 26)
CS. No. SCJ 1118/18 SHAKIR VS. PANKAJ KUMAR JEENWAL & Ors.
manner after affixing court fees as per the particular documents. It has already been observed that the plaintiff has failed to specify any particular documents which he seeks recovery of which he was required to do and to then value his suit accordingly and pay the appropriate court fees as per section 7 of the Court Fees Act. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
47.In view of the findings given under issue no. 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost of the suit.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan
madaan Date:
2025.02.14
16:39:55 +0530
Announced in the open court (DEEKSHA MADAAN)
on 14.02.2025 Civil Judge-02(South)
(This judgment contains 26 pages Saket Courts, New Delhi
and each page has been signed by me.)
(Deeksha Madaan),
Civil Judge-02(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
14.02.2025 (Page 26 of 26)