Delhi District Court
Jindal Poly Films Ltd vs Naveen Kumar Srivastava on 22 March, 2025
THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH
CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No. DLND030025712019
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Jindal Poly Films Ltd.
Plot No. 12, Local Shopping Complex
Sector - B1, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi-110070
. . . Plaintiff
versus
Naveen Kumar Srivastava
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Srivastava
R/o Village Jalalpur
Post Kauria, Distt. Azamgarh
Uttar Pradesh - 276141
. . .Defendant
Date of Institution : 30.08.2019
Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.03.2025
Decision : Dismissed
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
VAIBHAV
INJUNCTION PRATAP
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV PRATAP
SINGH
Date: 2025.03.22
16:30:28 +0530
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019
Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 1 of 22
JUDGMENT
PLAINT
1. The present suit is filed against the Defendant, with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
a) Restrain the defendant from disclosing Plaintiff's confidential information including but not limited to BOPP production methodology and techniques; client information, marketing/sales strategy, data on pricing etc. to any person/company including but not limited to any competitor of the plaintiff,
b) Direct the defendant to return any or all the plaintiff's data, or any other information which has been acquired and stored by the defendant during his employment with the Plaintiff,
c) Restrain the Defendant from using any and all information relating to or obtained by the Defendant while in the employment of the Plaintiff,
d) Pass any other such order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the present case.
2. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff in the Plaint are that the Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the manufacturing of various films and photographic products, and is the largest manufacturer of BOPET and BOPP Films in India with a global presence.
3. That the present suit is filed by Mr. Devinder Rithaliya, the CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 2 of 22 Director (Group HR) of the Plaintiff, who is duly authorized to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Plaintiff.
4. That the Defendant, an erstwhile employee of the Plaintiff, resigned on 07.08.2019, breaching his legal obligations by failing to properly hand over confidential data, and is likely to join a competitor while retaining proprietary information.
5. That the Defendant applied for the position of Assistant Manager (Coating) in July 2010 and was appointed on 23.08.2010 at the Nasik Plant, subject to the terms and conditions of the Appointment letter.
6. That the Defendant signed an Agreement of Service and Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure Agreement on 15.07.2010, accepting the terms as a prerequisite for employment, which were binding.
7. That the Defendant received training in coating operations at the Plaintiff's expense, gaining access to confidential production techniques and business information critical to the Plaintiff's market position.
8. That the Defendant resigned on 07.08.2019, requesting to CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 3 of 22 be relieved by 15.08.2019.
9. That the Defendant agreed not to disclose any confidential information during and after his employment, as per the terms of the Appointment letter.
10.That the Defendant reaffirmed his confidentiality obligations by signing a Post Employment Undertaking on 14.08.2019, agreeing to refrain from joining a competitor for 24 months.
11.That the Defendant was in charge of coating operations at the Nasik Plant, with access to confidential information related to production, pricing, and customer strategies, which are vital to the Plaintiff's business.
12.That the Plaintiff has learned that the Defendant intends to join a competitor and failed to properly hand over confidential data, risking the misuse of proprietary information.
13.That disclosure of the Plaintiff's confidential information to competitors would cause irreparable harm to its business, which cannot be compensated by money.
14.That the Defendant is willfully breaching his contractual CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 4 of 22 obligations, and any disclosure of trade secrets would lead to irreparable loss for the Plaintiff, which has invested considerable resources into developing such information.
15.That the Plaintiff has made efforts to resolve the issue amicably but has been unsuccessful, leading to the filing of this suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
16.Defendant filed a WS and took the stand that he resigned on 31.07.2019 by submitting a hard copy to department head Mr. Sanjeev Saxena, as stated in the email provided by the Plaintiff. He handed over all documents to Sandeep Kolhe and reports to Sandeep, Ramalingam, and Debasis Bakshi.
17.That the Defendant never had access to confidential chemical information, as other employees handled the chemical mixing department.
18.That the Defendant's current role in the current employment is different from the previous one, as he is no longer part of the product development team but only responsible for production. Security at the Plaintiff's company is high, with no cameras allowed, and no data cables or pen drives permitted. The Defendant was only involved in the coating system, not in the production of CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 5 of 22 base films, which were handled by others.
19.That the Defendant's first interview was on 20.07.2010 at the Nasik plant, and he joined on 23.08.2010 under a three- year bond. The Plaintiff obtained a cheque for six months' salary from the Defendant to ensure his commitment, and the service agreement, including the cheque details, was signed two months after joining.
20.That the Plaintiff never provided training to the defendant on coating operations or formulations, and all product formulas were coded and secret. The Defendant signed all documents after joining, but no discussion occurred beforehand.
21.That the Plaintiff's suit is based on concealed facts, lacks legal provisions, and is solely based on conjecture, leading to its dismissal. The suit lacks cause of action, and no rights have been violated.
22.That the Defendant did not take confidential data, nor did he violate any terms of the employment contract, and the Defendant had no option but to sign the agreement after joining.
23.That the Defendant never assured not to join a competitor or maintain confidentiality after resignation. The CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 6 of 22 Defendant did not sign any post-employment undertakings, and the claim of the Defendant joining a competitor with confidential information is denied.
24.That there is no secret formulation or trade secret that the Defendant possessed, nor could such information harm the Plaintiff's business.
25.That the Plaintiff has no prima facie case, and the balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff. The claim of irreparable harm due to the defendant's actions is false.
26.That the prayers of the Plaintiff should be rejected, as it is misconceived.
ISSUES
27.On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 18.02.2020 and 02.12.2022:
27.1.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?
OPD.
27.2.Whether the present suit lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD 27.3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from disclosing confidential information as mentioned in prayer clause A of the plaint? OPP 27.4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 7 of 22 permanent and mandatory injunction seeking return of plaintiff's data stored and acquired during the employment of the defendant with the plaintitff? OPP PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
28.The Plaintiff examined himself on affidavit as PW-1 on 27.09.2022 and 10.08.2023. Following documents have been proved by the said witness:
Sl Exhibit/ Mark Documents
No.
1. Ex. PW-1/1 True copy of the minute of
meeting dated 30.01.2021.
2. Ex. PW-1/2 Photocopy of office copy of
the appointment letter dated
23.08.2010
3. Mark A Copy of Agreement of service
4. Ex. PW-1/4 Printout of email dated
07.08.2019
5. Ex. PW-1/Y Certificate under Section 65 B
IEA with minutes of meeting
dated 30.01.2021.
29.PW-1 was cross-examined by Learned Counsel for Defendant on 10.08.2023. There being no other witnesses, PE was closed.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
30.Defendant examined himself as DW-1 without exhibiting any documents. He was cross-examined by the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff.
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 8 of 22 FINAL ARGUMENTS
31.Final arguments were then heard in detail over multiple dates of hearings. I have gone through the record with the assistance of counsel and I have heard Mr. Tanumoy Majumder, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Mr. Mukesh Anand, Learned Counsel for the Defendant. Plaintiff has placed on record written submissions as well.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE? OPD.
ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE PRESENT SUIT LACKS THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT? OPD
32.These issues being related, are taken up together. The Defendant contends that this Court lacks the requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute, asserting the absence of any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. This argument is predicated on the testimony of PW-1, who, during cross-examination, stated that no "activity" transpired between the parties in Delhi. In rebuttal, the Plaintiff clarifies that the term "activity" as used by the witness was specifically referring to the non-occurrence of BOPP production in Delhi.
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 9 of 22
33.The Plaintiff, however, submits that the Defendant was appointed by the Delhi office of the Plaintiff, situated in Vasant Kunj. Furthermore, the Agreement executed between the parties contains a clause that confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts of Delhi, thereby establishing the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and resolve the present suit.
34.The onus of proving the lack of territorial jurisdiction rested upon the Defendant. Upon a careful consideration of the evidence presented, and in accordance with the standard of preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be conclusively said that the Defendant has established a case more probable than that of the Plaintiff's. Notably, the Plaintiff reported to the Delhi office, and in conjunction with the exclusive jurisdiction clause incorporated within the Agreement, it is held that this Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit.
35.Dispute was also raised by the Defendant as to the maintainability of the suit as the AR of Plaintiff who filed the suit was not authorised to do so at the time of filing. It is argued that the suit having been filed without a board resolution authorising such filing, the suit is bad in law. The fact of such authorisation being missing has also been elicited out of PW-1 in his cross-examination.
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 10 of 22
36. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff fairly concedes that no board resolution existed at the time of filing the suit. However, Plaintiff moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to bring on record two additional documents, which was allowed by order dated 11.02.2025. The documents in question were board resolution dated 14.08.2024 and a Letter of Authority dated 10.01.2025. By these documents, the Plaintiff Company ratified all acts of the AR of Plaintiff taken in this suit.
37.Plaintiff has placed reliance on United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, 1996 INSC 1073. It is important to quote certain paragraphs thereof hereunder:
"8. In this appeal, therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the plaint was duly signed and verified by a competent person.
9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the CPC, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case as for as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
10. In cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC a pleading is CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 11 of 22 required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto an de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can. on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
XXXX
12. The Courts below having come to a conclusion that money had been taken by respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 and husband of respondent No. 3 had stood as guarantors and that the claim of the appellant CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 12 of 22 was justified it will be a travesty of justice if the appellant is to be non suited for a technical reason which does not go to the root of the matter. The suit did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and the only defect which was alleged on behalf of the respondents was one which was curable.
13. The court had to be satisfied that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi could sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. The suit had been filed in the name of the appellant company; full amount of court fee had been paid by the appellant bank; documentary as well as oral evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant and the trial of the suit before the Sub Judge, Ambala, had continued for about two years, it is difficult, in these circumstances, even to presume that the suit had been filed and tried without the appellant having authorised the institution of the same. The only reasonable conclusion which we can come to is that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi must have been authorised to sign the plaint and, in any case, it must be held that the appellant had ratified the action of Sh. L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint and thereafter it continued with the suit ."
(Emphasis by me)
38.As held, a director of a company is empowered under CPC to maintain a suit without any explicit authorization and a company may always pass a board resolution ratifying the acts of its officer in signing pleadings.
39.It is abundantly clear from the material on record that it is the Plaintiff company itself that is prosecuting this suit. If at all the plaint was defective, it was a curable defect which has been rectified by the Plaintiff before the conclusion of the trial. There is nothing on record that the CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 13 of 22 present suit was filed or has been prosecuted for about a decade without the authorisation of the Plaintiff company. The argument of the Defendant against it is an invitation to split hairs, which this Court politely declines. Consequently, the suit is deemed maintainable.
40.These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendnat.
ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE OF PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT FROM DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AS MENTIONED IN PRAYER CLAUSE A OF THE PLAINT? OPP ISSUE NO. 4: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE OF PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION SEEKING RETURN OF PLAINTIFF'S DATA STORED AND ACQUIRED DURING THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH THE PLAINTITFF? OPP
41.Both these issues being related are taken up together.
THE LAW OF TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN INDIA
42.India is a party to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") of the World Trade Organization ("WTO"). As per Article 39 thereof, an obligation is cast on the contracting states to provide legal means to protect secret information that has commercial CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 14 of 22 value from disclosure without the consent of the owner of the information who has maintained the secrecy of such information. Many contracting parties have enacted comprehensive and specialized legislation aimed solely at safeguarding trade secrets. India has not enacted any such legislation and the protection of trade secrets is derived from indirect provisions within contract law, criminal law, and copyright law, rather than through a singular, consolidated statute.
43.Even in the absence of a contract, protection has been granted to confidential information based on common law principles. In India as well, the protection of trade secrets has been granted based on common law, relying on principles such as breach of trust and breach of confidence. The common law remedy is available solely in instances where the secret or undisclosed information is compromised due to a breach of contract or breach of confidence, which needs to be established with evidence. [See John Richard Brady v. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 Del. 372.]
44.Expounding upon this principle, the Calcutta High Court in Fairfest Media Ltd. v. ITE Group Plc, MANU/WB/0001/2015, succinctly articulated the core tenet of this branch of law, emphasizing that, "the essence of this branch of law, whatever its origin may be, is that a person who has obtained information in confidence is not CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 15 of 22 permitted to use it as a springboard for activities that are detrimental to the individual who made the confidential communication."
45.However, in practice, such information is often protected by the means of employment or work contracts that incorporate confidentiality clauses including non- disclosure and non-compete agreements.
WHAT IS A TRADE SECRET OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION?
46.A trade secret refers to any proprietary business information that holds intrinsic value, is not publicly disclosed, and is safeguarded through reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality. Such secrets provide companies with a strategic edge, enabling them to outperform competitors.
47.Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement requires member states to protect undisclosed information (which can include trade secrets) in accordance with Article 10 of the Paris Convention, 1967. However, the terms "trade secrets" and "know-how" are not explicitly mentioned in Article 39. Undisclosed information is defined under Article 1(2) of TRIPS as a category of intellectual property. The obligation under Article 39(1) is to protect undisclosed information from unfair competition, as per Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention. Unfair competition is defined as any act by a competitor exploiting another's industrial or CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 16 of 22 commercial achievements without making substantial changes to the original.
48.Article 39(2) does not provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes undisclosed information. Instead, it outlines the conditions that must be met for information to qualify as undisclosed and eligible for protection. These conditions include that the information must:
48.1. Be secret (not generally known or easily accessible), 48.2. Possess commercial value due to its secrecy, and 48.3. Be subject to reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy, based on the circumstances.
49.The TRIPS Agreement grants the lawful controller of such information the ability to prevent its disclosure, acquisition, or use by others in a manner contrary to honest commercial practice.
50.Thus, as opposed to a non-compete agreement, which is not the subject matter of this suit, a non-disclosure agreement is not in restraint of trade within the meaning of Section 27 of the Contract Act and is not automatically void. It will have to be adjudicated on a case to case basis.
Maintaining secrecy over undisclosed information does not render an ex-employee idle and does not create restraint on his ability to secure new employment.
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 17 of 22 HOW DOES THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM SQUARE WITH THE TRIPS PRINCIPLES?
51.As per the prayer (a) in the plaint, what is sought to be protected by this suit is the confidential information of the Plaintiff company, based on the confidentiality agreement signed by the Defendant.
52.It thus needs to be seen whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the triple test mentioned in paragraph 47 above.
53.The Plaintiff asserts the confidentiality of its BOPP production methods, as well as the methodology and techniques employed in the production of other industrial films, including coating processes, which purportedly render the Plaintiff's product "unique in the market." However, the Plaintiff's pleadings fail to even disclose the full form of "BOPP," let alone provide an explanation as to its nature or its distinctive attributes that purportedly set it apart from other products in the market.
54.This omission fails to meet the requisite standards of pleading. The Plaintiff is obligated to demonstrate how the data it claims as confidential deviates from information possessed by other entities within the same industry. Moreover, the Plaintiff ought to have delineated any supplementary measures, beyond those stipulated in the Defendant's employment contract, that have been undertaken to preserve confidentiality.
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 18 of 22
55.A review of both the plaint and the evidence presented reveals that there is no specific data the Plaintiff seeks to protect. Consequently, even if an injunction regarding confidentiality were to be granted, its scope would remain vague and unenforceable. Such an order cannot be made by this Court when its terms are unclear, and neither the Court nor the Defendant would be able to ascertain the precise conduct prohibited under its terms, making it a per decree incapable of being executed.
56.In relation to the confidentiality of client details, the Plaintiff has similarly failed to specify what particular client information is deemed confidential and sought to be protected.
57.Not only has the Plaintiff failed to identify the undisclosed information it seeks to safeguard or demonstrate how such information was protected, but it has also failed to present any evidence establishing that the Defendant ever came into possession of said information.
58.As per the evidence led, there is not a shred that suggests that the Defendant ever came in possession of any confidential information or used it as a springboard to seek career advancement to the Plaintiff's detriment. DW-1's testimony that he does not even work in the R&D department at his new workplace remains unrebutted.
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 19 of 22
59.Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not substantiated a sufficient case to warrant the reliefs sought. The plaint, in conjunction with the evidence adduced, is wholly inadequate in establishing a basis for such relief.
60.Furthermore, the confidentiality agreement between the parties is stipulated for a duration of ten years. It is understood that this marks the tenth year of the agreement, after which the prohibition will lapse by operation of law. An injunction is an equitable remedy, granted at the discretion of the Court and not as a matter of right. The mere existence of a case does not ipso facto entitle the Plaintiff to such a remedy. In my considered opinion, this litigation has effectively outlived its practical purpose. After a span of a decade, the Plaintiff has failed to present any tangible evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant possessed confidential information or disclosed it.
61.It appears that this case is one of personal vendetta, with the Plaintiff seeking to exact retribution for the Defendant's departure from its employment. The Plaintiff acting like a jilted lover cannot be countenanced by this Court. It is learnt from the bar during final arguments that the Plaintiff company is pursuing about ten similar litigations against former employees. This Court then wonders as to why a Company, instead of focussing on its high attrition rate and the causes therefor, would choose to CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 20 of 22 focus on teaching lessons to former employees using Courts of law. The answer is not far to seek. It is luxury litigation for a company with a panel of lawyers and a litigation budget to set the law in motion against an individual who was made to suffer the judicial process for a decade at great personal expense and not to forget the anxiety cost of the proverbial "taareekh pe taareekh"
regime we have come to know and accept.
62.It would be injustice if the Defendant is not compensated for the same. Needlessly drawing a person into litigation has to be dealt with a heavy hand, as has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Charu Kishor Mehta vs. Prakash Patel and Ors., MANU/SC/1044/2022, wherein cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed on the wrongdoer who drew another into litigation without just cause. In Kusum Kumria and Ors. vs. Pharma Venture (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/DE/3144/2015, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasised the need to impose realistic costs while noting that the inherent powers of a Civil Court to impose costs are not restricted by Sections 35, 35-A and 35-B of the CPC.
63.Before I part with this judgment, I would be remiss if I do not place on record appreciation for the able and fair assistance provided by Mr. Tanumoy Majumder, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, who did not flog any dead horse. Unfortunately, he was limited by the brief he held and his CS SCJ No. 1125/2019 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 21 of 22 ingenuity could not save the case of the Plaintiff, which was etched in black and white much before he came into the picture.
64.These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
65.In view of the above discussion, the suit of the Plaintiff fails and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the Defendant within one month.
66.Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
67.File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance, as per rules.
Pronounced by me in the Open Court on 22.03.2025.
VAIBHAV Digitally
by VAIBHAV
signed
PRATAP PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2025.03.22
SINGH 16:30:45 +0530
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
CS SCJ No. 1125/2019
Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. Naveen Kr. Srivastava Page No. 22 of 22