Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Angelique International Limited vs Sh. Brijesh Kumar Shukla on 28 April, 2022

     IN THE COURT OF ADJ­07, SOUTH­EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
                                                 DELHI

Presided By: Mr. Jay Thareja, DHJS

RCA No: 88/2019

Angelique International Limited
Having its Registered Office at
104­107, Hemkunt Tower,
1st Floor, 98 Nehru Place,
New Delhi­110019.                                                   ...Appellant
                                                 Versus
Sh. Brijesh Kumar Shukla
S/o Sh. Ram Bhuwan Shukla
Resident of Village & Post Office Tighra,
Badi Semariya, Sirmour, Rewa, M. P.­486445.                           ...Respondent

                       APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908

                                              DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.06.2019
                                 DATE OF RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT : 25.03.2022
                                               DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28.04.2022

                                             JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/plaintiff (henceforth 'appellant') has filed this appeal under Section 96 of CPC, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2019, passed by the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge, South­East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (henceforth 'Ld. Trial Court') in Suit No.1235/2017, Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla (henceforth 'subject suit').

2. By way of the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2019, the RCA No.88/2019 Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.1 of 7 Ld. Trial Court has partly dismissed and partly decreed the subject suit and resultantly (a) refused to grant the relief of recovery of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the appellant, (b) refused to grant the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the appellant, to the effect that the respondent shall not contact the appellant or any of its officers, through email, phone etc. and (c) only granted the relief of declaration in favour of the appellant to the effect that the appellant has no outstanding monetary liability towards the respondent, on account of arrears of salary and other service benefits.

3. During the hearing of arguments qua this appeal, on 25.03.2022, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant had submitted (a) that the appellant is no longer interested in the relief of recovery of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ from the respondent, on the ground of defamation and (b) that by way of this appeal, the appellant only wants the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the respondent shall not contact the appellant or any of its officers, through email, phone etc., over and above the relief of declaration, already granted to the appellant, by the Ld. Trial Court.

4. In view of above­noted submission (a) of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant, the relief of recovery of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ from the respondent, on the ground of defamation, is taken to have been abandoned by the appellant/plaintiff as per Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of CPC, 1908.

5. In view of above­noted submission (b) of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant, the following point of determination,1 is framed:

1 In this regard, reference is craved to Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, 1908, which stipulates that while deciding an appeal, an appellate Court should frame/identify the point(s) of determination and RCA No.88/2019 Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.2 of 7 "Whether the Ld. Trial Court was justified in denying the grant of the desired relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the appellant?"

6. In order to decide the aforesaid point of determination, it is necessary to refer to (a) issue no. 3 framed by the Ld. Trial Court in the subject suit, on 30.05.2018 and (b) the findings given qua issue no. 3 by the Ld. Trial Court in paragraphs 8 and 8.1 of the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2019.

7. The issue no. 3 framed by the Ld. Trial Court in the subject suit, on 30.05.2018, reads as under:

"Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any injunction restraining the defendant from contacting the plaintiff or it's employees in any manner? OPP"

8. Paragraphs 8 and 8.1 of the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2019 read as under:

"8. PW­1 stated in his testimony that defendant had started making calls to officers of the plaintiff saying irrelevant things and raising arbitrary demands of money from them. However the said vague testimony has not been supported by any other evidence on record. No document or correlating oral evidence has been produced to prove the aforesaid averment. The details as to which number was used to make these calls, what was the time period when the same were made, who all were the persons/officers of the plaintiff then render its decision(s), thereon.

Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.3 of 7 company who received these calls, etc have not been specified by PW­1. The plaintiff could have easily produced testimony of such officers who were repeatedly called by the defendant but the same was not done. In such a scenario the said averment seems to be nothing but a bald and vague allegation, and does not inspire confidence.

8.1 PW­1 stated that defendant again showed his willingness to work for the plaintiff via email dated 22.10.2015, which was not responded to by the latter. Printout of the said e­mail, Mark­E, was also placed on record to corroborate the same. However, the incidence of defendant writing an email showing his interest for re­employment with the plaintiff can not in isolation be held to be any such act which warrants a legal action from this Court. The essence of any such order from the Court lies in restraining the defendant from harassing or violating any rights of plaintiff. In the instant suit, the plaintiff has neither been able to prove as to who exactly are the people who the defendant is contacting nor is he able to prove the harassment or violation of rights which is a resultant cause of the same. Hence for aforesaid reasons, no ground is made out to issue an injunction against the defendant enjoining him from contacting either the plaintiff or its employees in any manner.

Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff."

Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.4 of 7

9. A perusal of the above­quoted paragraphs 8 and 8.1 reveals that the Ld. Trial Court has refused to exercise discretion in favor of the appellant and grant the desired relief of permanent prohibition injunction to the appellant, (a) because the testimony of PW­1 Sh. Praveen Singhai is devoid of material particulars viz. the phone number which was used by the respondent to make the allegedly harassing calls to the officers of the appellant, the time period of the calls and the names of the officers of the appellant, who had received the allegedly harassing calls, (b) because the appellant had withheld the best evidence i.e. the oral testimony of the officers of the appellant, who had received the allegedly harassing calls/emails of the appellant and (c) because the email dated 22.10.2015, Mark E (later Ex.PW3/4), does not meet the threshold for grant of the desired relief of permanent prohibition injunction to the appellant.

10. In my view, there is nothing wrong with the aforesaid reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court because the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction cannot be granted at the mere asking of a party, because a plaintiff (especially a company), seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, its former employee, from contacting it or its officers, in any manner, is required in law to plead and prove that the the conduct of the defendant, its former employee, had reached the level of 'harassment' or 'undue interference in the working of the plaintiff and its officers' and because the evidence led by the appellant during the trial of the subject suit, does not meet the said threshold. In respect of this last reason, it is specified that the mere sending of the email dated 22.10.2015, Mark E (later Ex.PW3/4), by the respondent to the officers of the appellant, does not meet the said threshold because the general tenor of the said e­mail is decent RCA No.88/2019 Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.5 of 7 and because ultimately by way of the said e­mail, the respondent was only seeking re­employment by the appellant.

11. Since, I am in agreement with the reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court, while deciding issue no.3 framed in the subject suit, on 30.05.2018, the point of determination identified in paragraph 5 of this judgment is decided in favor of the respondent and against the appellant and it is held that the Ld. Trial Court was justified in denying the grant of the desired relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the appellant. As a result, this appeal, which the appellant had voluntarily restricted qua the grant of the desired relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

12. Before parting with this judgment, I find it necessary to clarify that even if by way of this appeal, the appellant would have pressed for grant of the relief of recovery of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ from the respondent, on the ground of defamation, I would not have granted the said relief because in my view, the plaint of the subject suit has been drafted, without taking note of the law regarding 'defamation of a corporation/company', as explained in Union Benefit Guarantee Company Ltd. v Thakor P. Lal & Ors. AIR 1936 Bom 114 and because during the trial of the subject suit, the appellant had not examined any third person, in whose eyes, the business reputation of the appellant had lowered, on account of any words, written or spoken by the respondent. In regard to this latter reason, reference is craved to the distinction between 'insult' and 'defamation', as explained in paragraph 7 in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed v Durdana Zamir, (2009) 109 DRJ 357.

Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.6 of 7 Also, I find it necessary to clarify that even if, I had found any 'minor' deficiency in the reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court, while deciding issue no.3 framed in the subject suit, on 30.05.2018, I would not have interfered in the decision of the Ld. Trial Court to deny the grant of the desired relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the appellant because it is settled law that the grant of a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, is a subject matter of the discretion of a Trial Court and that an appellate Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Trial Court, unless the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court is per se unreasonable. In this regard, reference is craved to the judgment in Sen Mukherjee & Company v Smt. Chaya Banerjee, AIR 1998 Cal 252, wherein, in the context of relief for specific performance of a contract, it has been held that since the grant of relief for specific performance of a contract is discretionary, in an appeal, an appellate Court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Ld. Trial Court, unless it is demonstrated to be exercised, unreasonably or capriciously.

13. The Reader is directed to prepare a decree sheet, as per this judgment. Also, the Ahlmad is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment and the consequent decree to the Ld. Trial Court along with the record of the Ld. Trial Court. After compliance of the said directions by the Reader and Ahlmad, the file shall be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by JAY THAREJA JAY Date:

                                                                 THAREJA     2022.04.28
                                                                             17:18:03 +0530

Announced in open Court                                      (Jay Thareja)
today on 28.04.2022                                 Ld. ADJ­07, South East District,
                                                          Saket Courts/Delhi




RCA No.88/2019

Angelique International Limited v Brijesh Kumar Shukla Page No.7 of 7