Delhi District Court
Vijay Kushwaha vs Cipla Ltd on 6 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK
DISTRICT JUDGE - 03, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT
CS No. 977/2018
CNR No. DLND01-011925-2018
In the matter of:
Vijay Kushwaha,
S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Kushwaha
R/o H.No. 139, Gali No. 9,
M-Block, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110052
...Plaintiff
Versus
Cipla Ltd.
Through its Managing Director,
Sh. Nikhil Chopra,
Cipla House, Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
Registered office at:
A-37, IInd Floor,
Inner Circle, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
...Defendant
Date of institution : 08.10.2018
Date on which reserved for judgment : 06.02.2026
Date of decision : 06.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is filed for mandatory injunction, declaration and compensation.
Digitally signed by MEENUMEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:15:55 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 1 of 16 Plaint/Plaintiff's version
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed by the defendant as a management trainee in its organization vide appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 and he was posted at the office of defendant at Connaught Place. Initially the appointment of plaintiff was for a one year starting from 15.05.2011 to 14.06.2012 with the condition that if the suitable vacancy exists then the plaintiff's candidature would be considered for the same upon his performance during this period. On the basis of plaintiff's due diligence and work performance and dedication towards the assigned work vide appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 prior to completion of one year training period. Plaintiff was appointed as a territory manager with effect from 01.11.2011 in the capacity of permanent employment. Appointment letter dated 14.11.2011 was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff he was assigned managerial and administrative role as per clause 7 of the appointment letter and he was doing the work assigned to him with due diligence and dedication without any violation of terms and conditions.
"7. As a member of management team, you will be responsible for supervising the promotion of company's business in the territory assigned to you. Since your role will be mainly managerial and administrative in nature in involving exercise of judgment and discretion in dealing with customers and other outsiders, you are expected to operate with a high level of diligence and trust. You may also be required to supervise the work of Management Trainees during their period of training"
Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:16:05 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 2 of 16
3. It is further stated that plaintiff had been doing the work as assigned to him with due diligence and dedication without violation of any terms and conditions enunciated in his appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 and 14.11.2011. Thereafter, some senior managerial staff posted at Delhi registered office for their own promotion and benefits pressurized the plaintiff to do sale work of medicines by taking order from stockiest and achieve target of at least 10 lakhs or more per month by hook or crook and they also pressurize the plaintiff for doing unethical practices to achieve the target. When the plaintiff objected the same as he was concentrating on the work assigned to him as per para no. 7 of the appointment letter dated 14.11.2011 and that he was never communicated in writing for selling medicines by taking order from stockiest, then these erring senior managerial staff got alert and got the plaintiff transferred from North Delhi office to West Delhi office. The plaintiff sent email on 26.04.2017 to his senior officers and narrated all the abnormalities caused to him by the managerial staff of Delhi registered office but no response was given by the senior officers.
As per the plaintiff, all Senior Managers, Mr. Manoj Singh, Mr. Arvind Negi and Mr. Vishu Gupta forced him to do unethical practices and also threatened the plaintiff to give resignation or otherwise he shall face dire consequences. Mr. Vishu Gupta knowingly reduce the performance rating of the plaintiff from 4 point to 1 point and threatened the plaintiff for giving resignation. Plaintiff sent email on 23.05.2017 to the defendant but no disciplinary action against the erring officials was taken. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Sales Manager pressurized the plaintiff a number of times to give amount to the stockiest for taking orders and he also harassed the plaintiff. The plaintiff made CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Digitally Pages 3 of 16 signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:16:19 +0530 complaint to the HR department against the erring staff and when no disciplinary action was taken the complaint was subsequently made to Mr. Tejas Dhimar (SBH) and Trainer Mr. Aditya Raj (L&D) however the said officials did not take any action. The managerial staff of Delhi registered office also withheld the expenses for the month from March to May 2017. Repeated requests in this regard were made by the plaintiff and email dated
02.06.2017 and other followed emails were also sent. The plaintiff at number of times had requested to assign work to him as per para no. 7 of the appointment letter but no heed was paid to his requests and then on 20.06.2017 plaintiff was dismissed from his services while leveling allegations of "failed to achieve the goals of performance". The defendant sent email dated 20.06.2017 containing scanned copy of dismissal letter and scanned copy of cheque for the amount of Rs. 38,398/- dated 17.06.2017 and later on hard copy of the said cheque was sent. It is stated that plaintiff has performed better than the expectations and despite that he was harassed and subsequently dismissed by the defendant's company, the present suit is filed.
Written statement of defendant
4. It is submitted on behalf of defendant that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and clear facts. It is further submitted that present suit is not maintainable as the both the parties are private entities and the contract of employment between the parties is a private contract with respect to the personal services of individual and hence such type of contract cannot be enforced through court of law. It is further stated that cheque of Rs. 38,398/- has already been given to the plaintiff Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd 12:16:31 +0530 Pages 4 of 16 towards one month basic salary in lieu of the notice and the same is already encashed by the plaintiff and thus plaintiff has left with no claim against the defendant. It is further stated that the present suit is not maintainable in view of the Section 14 (1) (a) (b) (c) and Section 41 (e) of Specific Relief Act. The suit is also stated to be non-maintainable in view of Section 73 of Indian Contract Act. It is further stated that as the plaintiff did not disclose any cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit deserves to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is further stated that plaintiff during his employment with the defendant company committed series of activities which amounted to professional misconduct and he also failed to perform professional commitments and he was also involved in the activities which were prejudicial to the interest of the company. It is further stated that the plaintiff acted against the professional standards set by the defendant company and also the guidelines issued by the Government of India to the pharmaceutical company and he was indulged in illegal trade practice which were against the interest, ethics, norms and values of the defendant company. It is further stated that plaintiff during his employment miserably failed to achieve the target fixed by the company from time to time due to which business of company was badly affected in the areas where he was posted.
Replication
5. In his replication, the plaintiff denied the averments of the written statements while simultaneously reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
Issues MEENU
Digitally
signed by
MEENU
KAUSHIK
KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07
12:16:42
+0530
CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 5 of 16
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree that his termination dated 20.06.2017 declared as null and void? OPP Issue No. 2: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of reinstatement of plaintiff with full wages and remuneration? OPP Issue No. 3: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs. 5 lacs towards mental and physical harassment? OPP Issue No. 4: Whether plaintiff is entitled to cost of the suit and legal expenses? OPP Issue No. 5: Whether present suit is not maintainable in view of Section 14(i) a, b and c and also on Section 41 (e) of Specific Relief Act? OPD Issue No. 6: Whether present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has received salary in lieu of one month's notice as per law? OPD Issue No. 7: Whether the present suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as the earlier suit was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file the present suit? OPD Issue No. 8: Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence
7. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of appointment letters dated 13.06.2011 and 14.11.2011 which is exhibit as Ex. PW-1/A (colly.) (OSR) Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:16:56 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 6 of 16
(ii) Copies of plaintiff's emoluments revising letters dated 02.11.2012, 20.11.2013 are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B (colly.) (OSR)
(iii) Photocopy of plaintiff's emolument revising letter dated 31.07.2012 is marked as Mark A.
(iv) Copy of email dated 26.04.2017 is encircled and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C (OSR).
(v) Copy of email dated 23.05.2017 is encircled and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D (OSR).
(vi) Copy of email dated 02.06.2017 is encircled and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/E (OSR).
(vii) Copy of email dated 20.06.2017 is encircled and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/F (OSR).
(viii) Copy of dismissal letter dated 20.06.2017 is encircled and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/G (OSR).
(ix) Photocopy of scanned copy of cheque bearing no. 158659 dated 17.06.2017 for Rs. 38,398/- is marked as Mark B.
(x) Copy of appreciation letter issued by defendant for the year 2011-12 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/I.
(xi) Photocopy of Achiever's Award 2015- for outstanding performance in 2014-15 is marked as Mark C.
(xii) Copy of certificate of participation for 'Discovery and Effectiveness' for the period from October 2015 to December 2015 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/K (OSR).
(xiii) Copy of Achiever's Award 2015 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/L (OSR).
Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:17:06 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 7 of 16
(xiv) Copy of Applause - Certificate of Appreciation is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/M (OSR).
(xv) Copy of Achiever's Award 2016 is exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/N (OSR).
(xvi) Copy of certificate of appreciation dated 16.07.2016 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/O (OSR).
(xvii) Copy of certificate of participation dated 13.02.2017 is marked as Mark D. (xviii)Copy of legal notice dated 10.07.2017 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/Q (OSR).
(xix) Copy of postal receipts dated 10.07.2017 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/R (OSR).
(xx) Copy of reply dated 22.08.2017 to legal notice dated 10.07.2017 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/S (OSR).
8. During cross-examination, he stated that the nature of his job was to meet the doctors and to explain and present them about the company's product and to promote the product and to ensure prescription of the product/medicines by the doctor. He admitted that as per the terms of the appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 Ex. PW-1/A (colly) he was responsible for promotion of company's business. He admitted that the company fixed the target, however, he again said that no target was fixed by the company for promotion of company's business. He admitted that as per Ex. PW-1/A (colly) he was responsible for promotion of company's business. He also admitted that in clause 17 of PW-1/A, it is mentioned that "company has a right to remove his services by giving one month notice or by payment of one month salary in lieu of the same". He further admitted that as per his CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Digitally signed by MEENU Pages 8 of 16 MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:17:21 +0530 appointment letter the defendant company had right to transfer him as per the requirement and one of his job was sales promotion of company's product. He further stated that he had accepted all the terms and conditions of his appointment letter Ex. PW-1/A. He admitted receiving of cheques for Rs. 38,398/- in lieu of notice period and that the said cheque was duly encashed by him. He further stated that he does not remember whether he had filed any bills or details of expenses he had incurred while working on behalf of company in the month of March to May 2017. He further stated that he has not filed any medical documents, prescription etc. to prove that he was undergoing depression or taking treatment for the same. He admitted that he had filed one suit against the defendant earlier also and the same was withdrawn.
Defendant's evidence
9. Defendant has examined Sh. Aniruddha Kunte as DW-1 who is Authorised Representative of defendant company. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of Appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 as Management Trainee is Mark A.
(ii) Copy of field working reimbursement for management trainee i.e. plaintiff dated 01.04.2010 is Mark B.
(iii) Copy of appointment letter of plaintiff as Territory Manager dated 14.11.2011 is Mark C.
(iv) Copy of Emoluments revision of plaintiff dated 31.07.2012 is Mark D. Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:17:30 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 9 of 16
(v) Copy of Revised Emoluments of plaintiff dated 02.11.2012 is Mark E.
(vi) Copy of Revised Emoluments of plaintiff dated 20.11.2012 is Mark F.
(vii) Copy of Termination letter dated 20.06.2017 is Mark G.
(viii) Copy of cheque dated 17.06.2017 is Mark H.
(ix) Copy of Account Statement of plaintiff dated 17.04.2018 is Mark I.
(x) Copy of Letter of Authority dated 23.11.2023 in favour of deponent namely Sh. Aniruddha Kunte is Ex. DW-1/10 (OSR).
Findings
10. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of parties. Record is carefully perused. My issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 5: Whether present suit is not maintainable in view of Section 14(i) a, b and c and also on Section 41 (e) of Specific Relief Act? OPD
11. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking declaration of his termination dated 20.06.2017 to be null and void being wrongful and illegal and seeking directions against the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff with full back remuneration. As per the plaintiff he was appointed initially for a period of one year starting from 15.05.2011 and then due to his diligence and working performance and dedication towards work, plaintiff was appointed vide appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 by the defendant before completion of one year training. As per the Digitally signed by MEENU CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd MEENU KAUSHIK Date:
KAUSHIK 2026.02.07 Pages 10 of 16 12:17:41 +0530 plaintiff, he was assigned managerial and administrative role as mentioned in para no. 7 of his appointment letter, however, some senior managerial staff pressurized him to do sales work of medicine and to achieve target at least of Rs. 10 lakhs per month by hook or crook and they also pressurized the plaintiff for doing unethical practices and when the plaintiff had objected the same, he was transferred from North Delhi office to West Delhi office. It is also the claim of plaintiff that thereafter he was threatened to resign or to face dire consequences by the managerial staff of Delhi registered office of the defendant. It is further claim of plaintiff that then his performance rating was reduced from point 4 to point 1 and he was finally dismissed from the service on 20.06.2017. Plaintiff has claimed that his expenses for the month from March to May 2017 were also not paid and despite making repeated requests for grant of work as per para no. 7 of his appointment letter no heed was paid to the same. Contrary to this as per the defendant plaintiff during his employment with the defendant company committed series of activities which amounted to professional misconduct and he also failed to perform professional commitments and he was also involved in activities which were prejudicial to the interest of the company.
Plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that the nature of his job was to meet the doctors and to explain and present them about the company's product and to promote the product and to ensure prescription of the product/medicines by the doctor and one of his job was sales promotion of company's product. He also admitted that as per the terms of the appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 Ex. PW-1/A (colly) he was responsible for promotion of company's business. Considering the testimony of the plaintiff, the claim of the plaintiff comes under shadow of doubt Digitally CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK Pages 11 of 16 KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:17:50 +0530 that he was unnecessarily pressurized by the senior managerial staff to do the work for which he was not responsible or that he was not assigned the work as per clause 7 of the appointment letter. In his cross examination he has also stated that he does not remember whether he had filed any bills or details of expenses he had incurred while working on behalf of company in the month of March to May 2017. Thus, claim of the plaintiff that the expenses of the relevant period were not supplied to him also become doubtful and remains not proved. As per the defendant, the present suit is not maintainable under Section 14 (1) (a) (b)
(c) and Section 41 (e) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the employment of plaintiff with the defendant company is based upon the contractual agreement Ex. PW-1/A which is a private contract with respect to employment for availing personal services of the plaintiff by the defendant company. It is further claim of the defendant company that the plaintiff during his employment committed series of activities which amounted to professional misconduct and he also failed to perform the professional commitment and that he was also involved in the activities which were prejudicial of the interests of the company.
The relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act are being reproduced herein below for the ready reference:
14. Contracts not specifically enforceable.--The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:--
(a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20;
(b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise; Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:17:58 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 12 of 16
(c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and
(d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.
41. Injunction when refused.--An injunction cannot be granted
--
...
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
...
12. The employment agreement executed between the parties Ex. PW-1/A is not disputed by either of the parties. Plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that as per clause 17 of the letter dated 14.11.2011 the defendant company had right to remove him from the services by giving one month notice or by payment of one month salary in lieu of the same. Plaintiff has admitted that a cheque of Rs. 38,398/- dated 17.06.2017 in lieu of notice period was received by him and the same was duly encashed by him also. Plaintiff has not led any evidence to show as to if after handing over the cheque of Rs. 38,398/- by the defendant company in lieu of the notice period, the defendant company has any further liability towards him or not. By way of admission of clause 17 of letter dated 14.11.2011 and compliance of the said clause by the defendant for the termination of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that defendant in any manner has violated the terms of employment of the plaintiff as agreed between the parties by way of letter dated 14.11.2011. Considering the fact that employment letter dated 14.11.2011 to the plaintiff by the defendant company was a sort of contract for employment between the plaintiff and the defendant and the terms of the said contract are duly agreed and admitted by the plaintiff, the relationship of plaintiff and the defendant company Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 Pages 13 of 16 12:18:06 +0530 is hit by Section 14 and sec 41(e) of Specific Relief Act. The present issue is thus, decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree that his termination dated 20.06.2017 declared as null and void? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. In view of admission on part of the plaintiff that as per clause 17 of the letter dated 14.11.2011 the defendant company had right to remove him from the services by giving one month notice or by payment of one month salary in lieu of the same and that he has received a cheque of Rs. 38,398/- dated 17.06.2017 in lieu of notice period, it cannot be held that defendant had violated any terms of the employment agreement. Present issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of reinstatement of plaintiff with full wages and remuneration? OPP
14. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Since issue no. 1 and 5 have been decided against the plaintiff, plaintiff is held not entitled for reinstatement and full wages and remuneration. Present issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs. 5 lacs towards mental and physical harassment? OPP
15. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. No evidence is adduced by the plaintiff in to prove the fact that he had suffered any mental and physical harassment because of the acts of the defendant. Further, since issue no. 1, 2 and 5 have Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:18:19 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 14 of 16 been decided against the plaintiff, present issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 4: Whether plaintiff is entitled to cost of the suit and legal expenses? OPP
16. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Since issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been decided against the plaintiff, present issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 6: Whether present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has received salary in lieu of one month's notice as per law? OPD
17. In view of the facts discussed for deciding the issue no. 1 and 5, present issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 7: Whether the present suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as the earlier suit was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file the present suit? OPD
18. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. No documentary evidence is adduced by the defendant to prove this present issue. In cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendant, plaintiff has admitted that he had filed one suit against the defendant earlier. However, he stated that same was withdrawn on technical ground. Considering the testimony of plaintiff and the fact that no documentary evidence is adduced by the defendant in this regard, present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07 12:18:27 +0530 CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 15 of 16 Issue No. 8: Relief.
19. Since issue no. 1 to 6 have been decided against the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
20. Both the parties shall bear their costs of the litigation.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. Files be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
(Announced in the open Court MEENU
signed by
MEENU
KAUSHIK
on 6th February, 2026) KAUSHIK Date:
2026.02.07
12:15:26
+0530
(Meenu Kaushik)
DJ-03, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
CS No. 977/2018 Vijay Kushwaha V Cipla Ltd Pages 16 of 16