Mithun Das vs Arvind Pani & Ors on 4 February, 2026

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mithun Das vs Arvind Pani & Ors on 4 February, 2026

Bench: Subramonium Prasad

                          $~22
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(OS) 270/2023 & I.A. 8592/2023, I.A. 8684/2024
                                    MITHUN DAS                                                                                .....Plaintiff
                                                                  Through:            Ms. Sugandha Anand                         and      Mr.
                                                                                      Surinder Anand, Advs.

                                                                  versus

                                    ARVIND PANI & ORS.                                                   .....Defendants
                                                  Through:                            Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma and Ms.
                                                                                      Mansi, Advs for Defendant Nos. 1
                                                                                      and 3.
                                                                                      Ms. Rupali Samuel, Ms. Aditi Soni,
                                                                                      Advs.

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
                                                                  ORDER

% 04.02.2026 I.A. 8683/2024

1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"], has been filed on behalf of the Defendants No.1 to 5 for rejection of the Plaint.

2. The present Suit is one for damages, injunction, and compensation for alleged defamation and malicious prosecution.

3. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present Suit are as under:

a. It is stated that the Plaintiff is a Mechanical Engineer, who joined the Defendant No.5/Company on 23.10.2017 as the CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 1 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47 Vice-President (Government Relations). The Defendants No.1 to 4 are the key position holders in Defendant No.5/Company. b. In 2019, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Chief Revenue Officer with effect from 01.04.2019, where he handled end-to-end business responsibilities including government and enterprise sales, partnerships, marketing, pre-sales, and delivery functions, while managing a large team. During his tenure, the Plaintiff received performance incentives and favorable ratings for multiple financial years, including 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.5/Company's turnover increased substantially during his tenure, and he was instrumental in securing large government orders, including contracts worth several crores from public sector bodies.

c. As per the Plaint, disputes arose on 18.03.2022 when the Plaintiff was served with a Show Cause Notice of the even date by Defendant No.3, alleging that the Plaintiff failed to disclose that his wife was a director in M/s Oxygen Associates Pvt. Ltd. ["OAPL"], a recruitment vendor associated with the Defendant No.5/Company. It is stated that the said Show Cause Notice alleged that a majority of sales hires since 2019 were routed through OAPL and the Plaintiff was the final authority in those hirings, thereby creating a clear conflict of interest. d. A reply to the said Show Cause Notice dated 18.03.2022 was given by the Plaintiff on the same day, stating that the Defendant No.5/Company was in fact informed earlier about CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 2 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47 his wife's association with OAPL and his role was limited to referring the vendor, without any involvement in commercial negotiations or hiring decisions.

e. This matter was thereafter referred to an investigation following a whistleblowing complaint. The investigation took place between March and June 2022, after which the Plaintiff was allegedly asked to resign by Defendant No.1 in June 2022. f. The Plaintiff claims that he was compelled to resign on 14.06.2022 under pressure and was thereafter relieved from service of the Defendant No. 5/Company towards the end of June 2022.

g. Despite his resignation, the Plaintiff states that he continued to assist the Defendant No. 5/Company in its meetings and projects through July and August 2022. However, in October 2022, in an internal company meeting and through subsequent emails, the Defendants herein informed employees of the Defendant No.5/Company that the Plaintiff had been relieved from services due to a related-party transaction, which the Plaintiff claims to be defamatory statement and wholly unsupported by evidence.

h. On 12.11.2022, an FIR bearing No. 0265/2022 was registered at P.S. Bellanduru, Bengaluru against the Plaintiff and others under Sections 34, 120B, 201, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is stated that the said FIR contained allegations not only regarding the OAPL issue, but also accusations to the effect that the Plaintiff colluded with the CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 3 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47 family of a deceased employee, Ashish Gupta, to falsely claim financial benefits under a bereavement assistance policy. i. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he had only helped the deceased employee's family on humanitarian grounds to coordinate with the Defendant No. 5/Company for benefits announced by the Reliance Company. He further claims there were email records showing his limited role in facilitating documentation.

j. The Plaintiff also denies the allegations relating to pricing irregularities, partner routing of orders, misuse of marketing funds, and other charges mentioned in the FIR. He states that the FIR caused him serious professional and personal harm, social stigma, and loss of employment opportunities. k. It is stated that the Plaintiff got anticipatory bail on 13.12.2022, and thereafter, the Charge-Sheet in the abovementioned FIR came to be filed on 22.02.2023.

l. It is the case of the Plaintiff that even after the closure report dated 22.02.2023 by the investigating officer, the Defendants continued to malign his reputation within the industry and among former colleagues, affecting his livelihood and social standing. This prompted the Plaintiff to issue a Legal Notice to the Defendants on 20.03.2023, claiming damages for loss of professional income, defamation and malicious prosecution. The Defendants replied to this Legal Notice on 08.04.2023 denying the allegations.

CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 4 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47 m. Consequently, the present Suit was filed seeking damages, an injunction against defamatory statements, and compensation for alleged malicious prosecution.

4. Now, by way of the present Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's Suit is not maintainable under law and does not disclose a cause of action for defamation.

5. The Defendants allege that the Plaintiff has not produced any document to show that any defamatory publication was made by the Defendants against him. It is stated that to build a case of defamation against a person, the requirement of publication of a false statement lowering the reputation of a person must be fulfilled. The Defendants argue that in the present case, no such publication is pleaded or established by the Plaintiff.

6. It is further contended that the Plaintiff has filed the instant Suit with a vexatious motive to harass the Defendants and extract money under the guise of a defamation claim. It is stated that the Plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has approached this Court with unclean hands.

7. It is argued by the Defendants that neither the internal inquiry conducted by the Defendant No.5/Company nor the subsequent lodging of an FIR can be equated with defamation. According to the Defendants, the Defendant No.5/Company initiated an internal investigation and filed the FIR only to protect its own interests, and such acts do not constitute defamatory conduct and, therefore, the Plaintiff's claim for damages is vague, arbitrary, and unsupported by any material.

8. It is stated that the Plaintiff has neither shown the extent of alleged loss of reputation nor produced any evidence to substantiate the claim for damages or malicious prosecution. It is further stated that the criminal CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 5 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47 proceedings are still alive insofar as although a closure report was filed, the Defendants have already filed a protest petition, and the competent court has directed reinvestigation in the FIR. It is contended that therefore, the claim of malicious prosecution is premature and unsustainable.

9. It is also the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee, despite admitting that a higher ad valorem fee was payable, and as such, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

10. The Defendants have also stated that the Plaint suffers from misjoinder of causes of action and arbitrary valuation, and the reliefs claimed do not meet the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the Plaint must be rejected at its very threshold.

11. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

12. For the adjudication of the present Application, it is pertinent to refer to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which reads as under:

"11. Rejection of plaint.

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 6 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

13. The law relating to rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is crystallized through various judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510, has held as under:

"13. Before dealing with the factual scenario, the spectrum of Order 7 Rule 11 in the legal ambit needs to be noted.

14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 7 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47

15. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

16. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] .)

17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487] only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.

18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 was applicable.

19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 8 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47 interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore, Order 10 of the Code is a tool in the hands of the courts by resorting to which and by searching examination of the party in case the court is prima facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised."

14. Perusal of the above observations of the Apex Court shows that the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the very threshold, without proceeding to record evidence or conduct a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive, should not be CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 9 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

15. While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court is confined only to examining the averments in the Plaint and the documents filed and to see as to whether a real cause of action has been set out in the Plaint or not and to make sure that the plaint is not manifestly vexatious and meritless.

16. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present Application does not merit acceptance. At the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the Plaint and the documents filed by the Plaintiff, and not the defence taken by the Defendants.

17. The Plaint, when read as a whole, contains specific assertions that defamatory statements were circulated within the Defendant No.5/Company, the Plaintiff was compelled to resign on the basis of such allegations, and that an FIR was lodged against him which, according to the Plaintiff, was malicious and without any basis. These averments, if taken at face value, affirmatively disclose a cause of action and cannot be adjudicated upon without trial.

18. The contention of the Defendants that no defamatory publication was made is a matter which would require appreciation of evidence and cannot be examined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Plaint contains allegations of internal communications, emails, and statements made in company meetings which, according to the Plaintiff, have affected his reputation and employment prospects. Whether such acts amount to defamation or not is a mixed question of fact and law, which can only be CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 10 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

19. The ground taken by the Defendants that the internal inquiry and registration of an FIR cannot constitute defamation or malicious prosecution is also a matter for trial.

20. The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the FIR was false, malicious, and motivated, and that a closure report was filed. Whether the ingredients of malicious prosecution are satisfied is a question that cannot be determined at the threshold, particularly when the Plaint contains detailed factual assertions in this regard.

21. The objection regarding insufficiency of court fee is also not a ground for rejection of the Plaint at this stage. Under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the CPC, this Court is required to first grant an opportunity to the Plaintiff to correct the valuation or make up for the deficiency in court fee. Rejection of the Plaint can arise only upon failure of the plaintiff to comply with such directions within the time granted by the Court.

22. The plea of misjoinder of causes of action and the challenge to valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction are also not grounds which fall strictly within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Such objections pertain to the maintainability or framing of issues and can be considered at an appropriate stage but they do not, by themselves, warrant rejection of the Plaint at the threshold.

23. The allegations of suppression of material facts, absence of evidence, or the pendency of criminal proceedings are defenses which the Defendants are at liberty to raise during the course of trial. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court cannot embark upon a roving inquiry into the truth or falsity of the averments made in the Plaint.

CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 11 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47

24. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that a meaningful reading of the Plaint discloses a cause of action and it cannot be said to be manifestly vexatious or barred by law. The grounds raised by the Defendants require adjudication on merits and cannot be decided at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

25. Accordingly, the present Application is dismissed. CS(OS) 270/2023 & I.A. 8592/2023, I.A. 8684/2024

26. List before Court on 10.03.2026, for framing of issues.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J FEBRUARY 4, 2026 Rahul CS(OS) 270/2023 Page 12 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 20:30:47

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders