Delhi District Court
Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd vs Kranti Kumar Mehta on 2 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Anuradha Prasad, DJS
Suit No.434/18
In the matter of:-
Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd
805, Vishal Bhawan,
95, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 .....Plaintiff
Vs
Kranti Kumar Mehta
Room No.110, K-6, Major
Umeet Singh Complex, Old Rangari Road,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037
email: kranti.mehta @gmail.com,
kranti.mehta@ yahoo.com
[email protected]
Also At:-
C/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Mehta,
Behind Kashturi Sweets, Amlatola,
Katihar, Bihar-854105 .....Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 10.04.2018
Date on which Judgement was reserved : 26.07.2019
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 02.09.2019
JUDGEMENT
1. The case 1.1. The plaintiff company being a legal entity duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 has instituted the present suit through its authorized representative Sh. Ashutosh Mishra for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82,476 along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the present suit till its realization and costs of CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 1 / 17 the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant @ of Rs. 3000 per hearing.
1.2. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of providing management, consultancy and technical services. The defendant is an erstwhile employee of the plaintiff company.
2. Plaintiff's case 2.1. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that vide appointment letter dated 17.10.2012, the defendant was appointed in the plaintiff company as Operation Manager with effect from 01.11.2012 and during the month of April 2015 defendant was drawing a salary of Rs.36,000/- per month. As per the terms of the appointment letter, the service of the termination/ resignation notice was stipulated to be period of two months on either side as the nature of consultancy services provided by the plaintiff company is such that its clientèle essentially require the completion of assignment by the person specifically concerned with the particular assignment. It is also the terms of the appointment letter that in case the defendant fails to serve the plaintiff for 2 months following the date of intimation of resignation or date of last working day with the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be liable to pay a sum of money equivalent to two months salary at the time of relieving. The defendant has unconditionally, voluntarily and freely accepted the terms and conditions of the said appointment letter with regard to his employment with the plaintiff.
2.2. The plaintiff company has been duly affording promotional and incremental benefits to the defendant and had extended a special salary increment to the defendant, vide increment letter dated 03.02.2015,of Rs. 2680/- per month to the defendant.
2.3. It is alleged that the defendant suddenly stopped reporting to work with effect from 08.04.2015 during his notice period and abandoned CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 2 / 17 his employment without handing over his duties to another person and also did not obtain a relieving letter from the plaintiff. The defendant did not join his duties during the notice period, except for one month or to contact the plaintiff in order to negotiate the relieving terms in an ethical and professional manner. It is further alleged that the defendant has dishonestly violated the terms of his appointment as he never resumed his duties after 08.04.2015 and the notice period of one month has not been complied with as the defendant has not paid the notice amount to the plaintiff till date. The above said conduct of the defendant clearly amounts to blatant violation of the terms of the appointment letter, and hence, the defendant is also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 as per the prevailing professional norms and policy of the plaintiff company for the violation of the above said undertaking and the appointment letter. Hence the defendant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 82,476/- after adjustment of Rs. 39,524 towards the salary of the defendant for the days of work attended by him during the month of March and April 2015. Although the defendant has promised to pay the amount of notice period for one month but has not paid the same till date.
2.4. The plaintiff had called upon the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.
82,476/- within 7 days vide its letter dated 09.04.2015 which has also been sent to the defendant on his email id vide email dated 09-04- 2015, however the defendant has neither replied to the said letter nor complied with the same till date despite having received the letter. Hence, the present suit.
3. Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendant contested the present suit of the plaintiff and filed the written statement.
4. Defendant's case CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 3 / 17 4.1. In its written statement, defendant has raised certain preliminary objections stating that the suit filed is beyond the period of limitation and pleaded that defendant has resigned from the services on 17.03.2015 and left the organization on 08.04.2015 by giving due written information. The present suit was filed on 09.04.2018 which is beyond 3 years of the last cause of action. Hence the suit is barred by period of limitation. The suit is also barred under Delhi Shops & Establishment Act. Since the plaintiff company falls within the purview of Delhi Shops & Establishment Act and therefore the plaintiff can only ask for one month notice or salary in lieu of that. That terms of the appointment letter were already terminated by the plaintiff by not abiding the terms of the letter. The appointment letter was signed under the mistake of fact and false misrepresentation. The defendant had signed the letter because he was assured with the commitment of bright and prospective future. Defendant being novice and first to corporate world easily believed all the false commitments of the plaintiff. The said letter was not signed with free will and therefore not valid and enforceable. The plaintiff company did not provide with the facilities as per the appointment letter and also did not provide the agreed salary to the defendant.
4.2. On merits, the defendant denied all the averments of the plaintiff in its plaint and stated that the defendant has joined the plaintiff company on 01.11.2012 as Operations Manager but he was paid salary of Rs.31,375/- only as against the promised salary of Rs.36,000/-. The plaintiff has deceived defendant with wrong facts and took signature on illegal appointment letter. The defendant has not violated any legal terms of the appointment letter. The plaintiff has always denied the benefits to the defendant and no incremental benefit had been given to him. When the defendant raised alarm against arbitrary denial of the CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 4 / 17 benefits, only a meager increment of Rs.2680/- was given, which disheartened him and resigned from the service. The defendant duly resigned from the service vide resignation letter dated 17.03.2015 which was only accepted by the plaintiff. On 07.04.2015, the plaintiff gave salary cheque to the defendant but malafidely made the stop payment. The plaintiff has not made final settlement and withheld the salary alongwith PF, earned leave and other benefits of defendant for 38 days. The defendant has already informed the plaintiff vide his communication dated 08.04.2015 for making full and final settlement despite plaintiff sent wrong mail. There is no proof of claim of Rs.50,000/- and the claims of remaining amount is illegal, wrong and incorrect. With these pleaded fats, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Issues 5.1. Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were identified, vide order dated 27.03.2019 by the Ld. Predecessor Court:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, as it itself has breached the contractual appointment terms? OPD.
(ii) Whether the contract itself was voidable on account of misrepresentation by plaintiff as regards the assurances thereunder? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is barred under the law of limitation?
OPD
(iv) Whether the suit is barred under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the prayed amount in prayer clause (1)? OPD
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest if so at what rate? OPP
(vii) Relief
6. Plaintiff's evidence 6.1. To prove its case, plaintiff examined its authorized representative Sh.
Ashutosh Mishra as PW1 as the sole witness in the present case who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A,wherein he CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 5 / 17 reiterated the contents as mentioned in the plaint and has relied upon the following documents:
Original certified true copy of authority letter/board of resolution dated 20.07.2017 Ex PW1/1 Copy of appointment letter Mark A Original copy of special salary increment letter dated 03.02.2015 Ex. PW1/3 Copy of violation notice dated 09.04.2015 Mark B Computer generated email dated 09.04.2015 Mark C Original postal receipt dated 09.04.2015 Ex. PW1/6 6.2. PW1 was subjected to cross examination, wherein he deposed that he joined the company in the year 2007 at the post of office assistant and as on date he is at the post of manager administration. In the year 2012, when the defendant joined the company, he was not part of HR and the appointment letter issued to the defendant was not signed in front of him. He had no idea whether any negotiation between the defendant and the employer with respect to the salary took place. The defendant was provided with the incremental benefits, promotions and welfare measures. The recovery amount as claimed in the plaint is based on appointment letter as issued to the defendant and the appointment letter does not talk about fine of RS. 50,000.
7. Vide order dated 14.05.2019, plaintiff closed its evidence and the matter was fixed for defence evidence.
8. Defendant's evidence 8.1. To prove its case, defendant examined himself as DW1 as the sole witness in the present case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A ,wherein he reiterated the contents as mentioned in the plaint and has relied upon the following documents:-
Copy of bank statement Mark DW1/1 Copy of email for resignation Mark DW1/2 CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 6 / 17 8.2. The defendant was subjected to cross examination wherein he deposed that he had signed and accepted the appointment letter dated 17.10.2012. He had received the hard copy of violation letter dated 09.04.2015 but never replied thereto. The witness admitted that he resigned through email dated 17.03.2015 and his resignation was accepted by the plaintiff company with effect from 17.03.2015 vide their email dated 01.04.2015. After 17.03.2015 he was working with the plaintiff company as he was serving the notice period as per appointment letter dated 17.10.2012. He further admitted that he worked at the plaintiff company till 07.04.2015. He admitted that he did not serve the stipulated notice period and voluntary said that at the time of entering the employment contract he was not agreeable to the terms as to the requirement of two months notice period. The plaintiff company told him that they would reduce the notice period from 2 to 1 months after his joining of service, however nothing of that sort happened. The said assertion of the witness was not supported by any documentary proof. He never asked for relieving letter from the plaintiff company nor sent any intimation to the plaintiff company that he will not be continuing my services after 07.04.2015.
9. Vide order dated 03.07.2019, defendant closed its evidence and the matter was posted for final arguments.
10. Final Arguments 10.1. Submissions on behalf of plaintiff 10.1.1. It was argued on behalf of plaintiff that the defendant had unethically stopped coming to the work from 08.04.2015. He has never demanded benefits or the remaining salary to claim his arrears if any. By way of the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant cannot claim any amount whatsoever and he should have filed a counter-claim to that effect which has not CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 7 / 17 been done till date. The counsel for plaintiff conceded that Delhi Shops and Establishment Act,1954 is applicable in the fact of the present case, however he argued that the notice period of even one month has not been served by the defendant. 10 days is short of one month notice period and the same cannot be claimed by way of earned leave as no document supporting it has been annexed alongwith the plaint. The plaintiff is also entitled to a fine of Rs.50,000/- as per ethical code of conduct as lot of expenditure is incurred upon training of the employees.
10.2. Submissions on behalf of defendant 10.2.1. It was argued on behalf of defendant that there is no valid contractual obligation to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The alleged terms of the appointment letter is in the form of indemnity bond and not properly stamped and therefore not a valid contract. Since Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 is applicable in the present case and therefore plaintiff can only ask one month notice or salary in lieu of that. One month notice period has been served to the plaintiff as the last working day of the plaintiff was on 07.04.2015 and the notice was given on 17.03.2015, the remaining of the 10 days was earned leave availed by the plaintiff. In fact the defendant is liable to recover the remaining dues from the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not cleared the salary as well as other benefits which the defendant was entitled to.
11. Heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and the defendant. This court has carefully perused the evidence on record in light of the pleadings of the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsels for the parties as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of defendant.
12. Appreciation and findings The issues are decided as under:-
CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 8 / 17 12.1. Issue no. (i):-
Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, as it itself has breached the contractual appointment terms? OPD.
12.1.1.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. However, the defendant did not lead any evidence to prove that the plaintiff had breached the terms of the contract and is therefore not liable to any relief. In any case this is a negative issue and whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief shall be decided on the basis of the onus being discharged by the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed by him. The question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief or not shall be decided at issue no.(v). Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
12.2. Issue no. (ii):-
Whether the contract itself was voidable on account of misrepresentation by plaintiff as regards the assurances thereunder? OPD 12.2.1.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
12.2.2. As per the defendant this is a case of pre-contract misrepresentation wherein the defendant states that the contract was signed by the defendant under misrepresentation of the plaintiff. It is therefore to be seen whether the misrepresentation as alleged by the defendant falls within the purview of section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The same is reproduced below:-
18. "Misrepresentation" defined- "Misrepresentation"
means and includes-
(1) The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, through he believes it to be true;
(2) Any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains and advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 9 / 17 him; Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
12.2.3. In the facts of the present case, the defendant has not pleaded that the information of the plaintiff, who made representations to the defendant, did not warrant the representations. The defendant has also not pleaded as to what advantage the plaintiffs who made the representations gained by misleading the defendant to his prejudice. The defendant has also failed to plead that the aforesaid representations made the defendant commit a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement. In the instant case, the subject of the agreement was acceptance by the defendant of employment with the plaintiff on the terms offered by the plaintiff. All that the plaintiff pleads is that the defendant had signed the letter because he was assured with the commitment of bright and prospective future. Defendant being the novice and first to corporate world easily believed all the false commitments of the plaintiff. He believed that the plaintiff company will provide all those facilities in future which are written in letter but not given. It is also alleged by the defendant that the defendant had not signed the letter with free will therefore it is not valid and enforceable against him. It appears that the plea of misrepresentation in the written statement by the defendant is without any reference to the ingredients as specified under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972.
12.2.4. In any case when the defendant pleads that the appointment letter was signed without free will then it is to be seen whether the defendant protested before or soon after the contract; whether the defendant took any steps to avoid the contract; whether the plaintiff pursued or attempted to pursue any alternative course of action. No evidence has CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 10 / 17 been led in this regard. In fact there has been no pleadings to this effect.
12.2.5.In view of the above, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
12.3. Issue no. (iii):-
Whether the suit is barred under the law of limitation?OPD 12.3.1. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. It was argued on behalf of defendant that the last working day of plaintiff was on 07.04.2015 and the suit is filed on 10.04.2018 which is beyond the period of limitation from the date when the last cause of action arose.
On the other hand, Ld counsel for defendant has argued that the time from which period of limitation would being to run is from 09.04.2015 i.e the date when the notice of violation of appointment letter was issued from the plaintiff company. The suit is filed on 10.04.2018 and therefore the suit is well within limitation.
12.3.2. Admittedly, the last working day of the plaintiff was on 07.04.2015. The defendant stopped coming to the plaintiff's company from 08.04.2015. Therefore, the right to sue would accrue on 08.04.2015. Upon calculating of 3 years from 08.04.2015, the period of limitation would expire on 09.04.2018.
12.3.3. As per the plaintiff the right to sue accrues on 09.04.2015 when the notice for violation of appointment letter was sent to the defendant. It is to be noted that the said notice on which the defendant is relying upon is in the nature of legal demand notice wherein the plaintiff has demanded an amount of Rs.82,476/- from the defendant. This argument of the plaintiff is not conceivable and is meritless as merely giving the legal notice does not generate a fresh cause of action. Further, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 there can be no CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 11 / 17 condonation of delay in case of suits. When the cause of action arose on 08.04.2015 i.e the date when the defendant stopped coming to the plaintiff's office and the suit was filed on 10.04.2018, clearly the suit is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation i.e after 09.04.2019. Thus the present suit is barred by law of limitation.
12.3.4. This issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
12.4. Issue no. (iv):-
Whether the suit is barred under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954?OPD 12.4.1. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Mantec Consultant Pvt. Ltd. vs State & Anr. on 11 April, 2012 it was decided by the Honble High Court of Delhi that the plaintiff company is an "Establishment" as defined under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 and is, therefore, governed by the provisions of the said Act. During the course of final arguments, it was conceded by both the parties that the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 is applicable to the plaintiff's company.
12.4.2. The aforesaid statute vide Section 30 (2) governs the field of termination of service by the employee and maximum amount of compensation which an employer could ask for. Section 30 (2) of the said Act is reproduced below:-
Notice of Dismissal Section 30 (2): No employee who has put in 3 months' continuous service shall terminate his employment unless he has given to his employer a notice, of at least one month, in writing. In case he fails to give one month's notice he will be released from his employment on payment of an amount equal to one month's pay".
CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 12 / 17 12.4.3. The said provision gives unfettered right to the employee to resign from service subject to maximum one month's pay as compensation in case of resignation without notice or immediate resignation. Section 30 (2) of Delhi Shop and Establishment Act,1954 casts a duty upon the employee to give one month notice to his employer before leaving the job and in default of same it entitles the employer for recovery of said amount. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention clause 6 of the appointment letter:-
Notice period: We expect to have a long-term relationship. However, as a statutory requirement the notice period on either side will be 2 (two) months. The notice period has to be served in terms of time due to the requirement to provide continuing customer service by the company, and money in lieu thereof, except in extremely exceptional cases at the sole discretion of the management, will not be accepted by the company, in order that services to not suffer.
12.4.4. Clearly clause 6 of the appointment letter is in contravention to Section 30 (2) of Delhi Shop and Establishment Act, 1954 as the appointment letter stipulated the notice period of 2 months. Therefore, the provisions of appointment letter defeats the provisions of Section 30 (2) of Delhi Shop and Establishment Act, hence, clause 6 of the appointment letter is void as being barred under Section 30 (2) of Delhi Shops and Establishment Act.
12.4.5. Hence, in the facts of the present case, clause 6 of the appointment letter is not applicable and as per Section 30 (2) of the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954. The defendant is bound to serve one month notice period or one month salary in lieu of the notice period.
12.4.6. In view of the above, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
12.5. Issue no. (v):-
CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 13 / 17 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the prayed amount in prayer clause (1)?OPD 12.5.1. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff has sought relief of recovery for an amount of Rs. 82,476/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time when the defendant left the plaintiff company, the defendant was working at the post of operation manager and was drawing a salary of Rs.36,000 per month. Since the defendant did not serve the stipulated notice period, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the defendant is liable to pay an amount equal to two months salary. The plaintiff is also claiming a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the ground that the defendant dishonestly violated the terms of the appointment letter and never resumed his duties after 08.04.2015. This means that essentially plaintiff wanted to claim an amount of Rs.
1,22,000. However the plaintiff admits that the plaintiff is liable to pay an amount of Rs.39,524/- to the defendant. Accordingly, after adjustment, defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.82,476/-.
12.5.2. Although, the plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs. 50000 as fine, however the basis of claiming such an amount has not been shown. There is also no pleadings to this effect. During the course of final arguments, it was argued on behalf of plaintiff that the said amount is quantified in the ethical code of conduct but the same is not placed on record for the perusal of the same. In any case, no evidence has been led to show that the plaintiff suffered a loss which can be liquidated to an amount of Rs.50,000/-. In these circumstances, this court had no occasion to apprise itself as to whether the claimed amount of Rs.50,000/-is a genuine pre-estimate of the damages suffered by the plaintiff. It appears that an amount of Rs.50,000/-is arbitrary, accordingly no relief to the extent of Rs.50,000/-can be awarded to the plaintiff.
CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 14 / 17 12.5.3. Since this court has already noted while deciding issue no. (iv) that the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 is applicable in the present case and the plaintiff was not required to serve a notice period of two months and as per section 30 (2) of the Act, notice period of 30 days was to be served by the defendant. The defendant has also admitted in its written statement that the plaintiff can ask for only one month of notice period or salary in lieu of that. This court shall now proceed to examine as to whether notice period of 30 days was served or not by the defendant.
12.5.4. Admittedly, the plaintiff gave his notice to resign on 17.03.2019 by way of e-mail dated 17.03.2019 in the following terms:-
"Please accept my resignation from the post of Operations Manager. My last day of work will be May 8th 2015. I would like to thank you to give me an opportunity to provide me services of Mantec.
On 01.04.2015, the plaintiff sent the following email to the defendant.
"This is to inform you that you resignation has been accepted by the MD w.e.f March 17, 2015 and we expect that you will work with full responsibility and commitment till 8th May 2015 as per below email. We wish you to the best of luck in your future endeviour The aforesaid emails are not disputed by the parties.
12.5.5. Since notice to resign was served on 17.03.2019 and admittedly the defendant stopped coming to the plaintiff company from 08.04.2019. Clearly notice period of one month has not been served as per the CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 15 / 17 mandate of Delhi Shops & Establishment Act,1954. There was a lapse of 10 days in full service of the notice period by the defendant. The ground taken by the defendant during the course of final arguments was that 10 days earned leave accrued in favour of the defendant and the same was availed during that period. No evidence was led to prove the fact that 10 earned leave accrued in favour of the defendant nor there is any pleading to that effect. It is to be noted that it is a matter of common sense that any leave could be availed by any employee only when the employee is in service and the leave has been duly sanctioned. It is the admitted case of the defendant that from 08.04.2015, he had severed all the employment relations from the plaintiff company and therefore the defendant can not be allowed to take such a plea. Accordingly the defendant was liable to serve notice for the period of one month and the same has not been served.
12.5.6. In view of the above, the defendant should have paid a sum of 36,000/- in lieu of the notice period of one month. However in the facts of the present case, it is plaintiff's own case that 39,524 is to be paid from the plaintiff to the defendant and no such amount has been paid. The salary per month which is again an admitted position is Rs 36,000/- when the defendant was last working with the plaintiff company. The net result is that the plaintiff is now liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,524/- to the defendant. However, no relief can be granted in favour of the defendant as no counter claim has been filed and no court fee for such an amount has been paid 12.5.7. In view of the above, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
12.5. Issue no. (vi):-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest if so at what rate?OPP CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 16 / 17 12.5.1. In view of the findings at issue no.(v), this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
13. Relief
13.1. In view of the finding upon the issues no. (iv) and (v) as aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. The suit is hereby dismissed.
13.2. No order as to costs.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. by ANURADHA ANURADHA PRASAD PRASAD Date:
2019.09.02 18:54:30 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Anuradha Prasad) on this 02.09.2019 Civil Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi.
02.09.2019 CS No.434/18 Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Kranti Kumar Mehta 17 / 17