Delhi District Court
M/S Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd vs Amit Lohia on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA :
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
DLND010110772023
Civil Suit No. : 497/2023
In the matter of :-
M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH)
Through its Authorised Representative
Mohd. Adeel Akhtar
Registered office at :
1278, B-1, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070. .......Plaintiff
Versus
Amit Lohia
S/o Late Sh. Satbir Lohia,
R/o House No. 782, Near Palab Village,
Ghitorni, New Delhi-110030. ........Defendant
Appearances:
Sh. Kuldeep Jauhri, Learned Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Shukla, Learned Counsel for defendant.
Date of institution of the suit : 23.12.2023
Final Arguments Heard on : 16.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026
Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and Damages
CS No. 497/2023 Page 1 of 21
M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12
15:43:00 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and damages for losses incurred on account of breach of employment agreement dated 15.07.2021.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The Plaintiff is a registered company under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 1278, B-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 and is in the business of providing I.T. related services with specific focus on Robotic process automation development/customization/installation/training and support and observes a strong goodwill in the market of robotic science. The instant suit is filed by the Plaintiff's authorised representative Mohd.
Adeel Akhtar, vide board resolution dated 12.12.2023.
2.2 The Defendant is a former employee who was working for the Plaintiff company as a Senior Business Analyst. The present suit arises out of a contractual obligation entered into between the Plaintiff(the employer herein) and the Defendant(the employee). The Plaintiff through the present suit seeks permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant restraining him from illegally poaching the customers of the Plaintiff and damages to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- as the Plaintiff has suffered immense losses in its business owing to the illegalities and breach of contract committed by the Defendant.
CS No. 497/2023 Page 2 of 21M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:05 +0530 2.3 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited having its registered office at 6th Floor, Tower B, Spaze I-tech Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018 (hereinafter referred to as "Capgemini") is a client of the Plaintiff since 2020 and does regular business with the Plaintiff. On 22.02.2021 and 22.04.2021, Capgemini, through email, expressed its requirement for a Senior Business Analyst to work with Capgemini on behalf of the Plaintiff and requested the Plaintiff to share relevant profiles for the concerned position. Thereafter, the Plaintiff, in the month of July, 2021, interviewed potential candidates for the post of Senior Business Analyst, wherein the Defendant was interviewed and was hired for the said post and an employment agreement dated 15.07.2021 was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
2.4 During the said course of employment, the Plaintiff deployed the Defendant at Capgemini, for rendering services to Capgemini on behalf of the Plaintiff company. The Defendant rendered services to Capgemini on behalf of the Plaintiff as a Senior Business Analyst. The corresponding emails between the Plaintiff and Capgemini with regard to the deployment and acceptance of Defendant at Capgemini was filed with the suit.
2.5 The Defendant was deployed at Capgemini from 12.07.2021 to 18.12.2022, rendering services on behalf of the Plaintiff CS No. 497/2023 Page 3 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:08 +0530 company as a Senior Business Analyst and was being paid an annual salary of Rs. 9,50,000/- by the Plaintiff. Copies of the salary slips of the Defendant were also filed on record with the suit.
2.6 However, the Plaintiff later gained knowledge of the fact, that the Defendant, during his course of employment under the Plaintiff, solicited work in his personal individual capacity for himself and poached the Plaintiff's client i.e. Capgemini, by rendering the same services in his individual capacity, which were being provided by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff company.
2.7 The Defendant left the Plaintiff's company on 15.12.2022 which was informed to the Plaintiff vide Defendant's resignation email dated 10.11.2022 which was accepted by the Plaintiff with the bona-
fide belief that the Defendant would have, during his employment and shall adhere to the applicable terms and conditions mentioned in the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021 even after termination of the employment. A copy of the email thread between Plaintiff and the Defendant intimating his resignation is filed with the suit.
2.8 It is evident from the mail exchanges between the management of the Plaintiff company and Capgemini, exchanged while the Defendant was serving his notice period at the Plaintiff company, that the Defendant had already made arrangements for his permanent employment at Capgemini. The Defendant was also CS No. 497/2023 Page 4 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:10 +0530 cautioned by the management of the Plaintiff company to be mindful of his contractual obligations and believed that the Defendant would act prudently and not join Capgemini upon his exit from the Plaintiff company, however, the Plaintiff later discovered that the Defendant went ahead and joined Capgemini. The mail exchange dated 22.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 between the management of the Plaintiff company and Capgemini is filed on record with the suit.
2.9 Subsequently, the Defendant joined Capgemini immediately after resigning from the Plaintiff company. In this regard, plaintiff has filed a screenshot of the LinkedIn profile of the Defendant. The Defendant started working for Capgemini, a company, for whom he was earlier working on behalf of the Plaintiff and which is in clear violation of Clause 11 and 12 of the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021. The said clauses mentioned that:
11. Non-Competition: On normal departure form the Company, for 2 years from the date of departure, you will not provide your services independently or otherwise to any competitor of SPAWN VENTURES SERVICES or to any vendor or buyer for whom SPAWN VENTURES SERVICES has worked during 2 years prior to your last day worked. Any product that you developed/ work upon while you are in service with SPAWN VENTURES SERVICES, and all information associated with the product shall be sole property of SPAWN VENTURES SERVICES.
All Intellectual Property Rights over the Product(s) and Information shall belong exclusively to SPAWN VENTURES SERVICES.
12. Solicitation: In the event of a competitor, buyer/ vendor approaching you or being perceived to do so, you must report this immediately in CS No. 497/2023 Page 5 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:13 +0530 person to the Division Head or Managing Director. An approach by an employee to a competitor, buyer / vendor, implied or actual, successful or otherwise constitutes a serious breach of the Company's relationship with that party and will be considered a serious disciplinary offence. Appropriate sanctions will be taken, including termination of service and instruction to repay training costs in full. Under no circumstances will the Company provide reference to the employee in future.
2.10 Capgemini was Plaintiff's client who was availing services from the Plaintiff, however, after the Defendant's resignation and subsequent joining the said company, Capgemini has stopped availing the services of the Plaintiff due to which the Plaintiff has faced a monetary losses in their business to the tune of Rs.10,62,990/-.
Copies of the invoices raised by the Plaintiff for Defendant's services to Capgemini through Quess Corp Limited was filed with the suit.
2.11 It can be seen from the invoices raised by the Plaintiff to Capgemini, that the services of the Defendant were billed at Rs.8,052/- per day by the Plaintiff for the services that were being rendered by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff company. Hence, on account of the breach by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered immense losses.
2.12 The defendant is in clear breach of the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021 entered into between him and the Plaintiff. The defendant has caused wrongful and unlawful losses to CS No. 497/2023 Page 6 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:15 +0530 the Plaintiff and taken wrongful and unlawful gain for himself. The defendant has committed acts of cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust and deception with the Plaintiff company.
2.13 Further, the Plaintiff company through its counsel sent a legal notice dated 22.04.2023 to the Defendant with regard to breach of the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021 wherein the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to seize and desist from working for Capgemini and to pay an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- on account of damages for breach of employment agreement dated 15.07.2021.
However, the defendant in his reply dated 10.05.2023 to the legal notice sent by the Plaintiff denied each and every averment raised by the Plaintiff and further claimed that the employment agreement is void in terms of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2.14 It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. v. Bappaditya Sarkar, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1926 has observed that "15. I have no doubt that such was the intention of the plaintiff, but with equal conviction I believe that such is the intention of all employers who rely on like negative covenants in employment contracts with their employees. It is this attempt to protect themselves from competition which clashes with the right of the employees to seek employment where so ever they choose and in a clash like this, it is clear that the right of livelihood of the latter must prevail. Clearly, in part at least, the Obligation Agreement sought to restrain Defendant No. 1 from seeking employment with an employer dealing in competitive business with the plaintiff after he had ceased to be an employee of CS No. 497/2023 Page 7 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:18 +0530 the plaintiff, and that too for a period of two years. Such an act cannot be allowed in view of the crystal clear law laid on this issue. However, in the impugned order dated February 20. 2008 the injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 is limited in scope, in the sense that it does not restrain the Defendant No. 1 from working with Defendant No. 2 or any other person/company, thereby steering clear of impinging the former's freedom to choose his own work place. The injunction only restrains Defendant No. 1 from approaching the plaintiffs suppliers and customers for soliciting business which is in direct competition with the business of the plaintiff. Hence, the injunction which has already been granted by order dated February 20, 2008 is made absolute."
2.15 The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunction against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from approaching the clients and customers of the Plaintiff for soliciting business which is in direct competition with the business of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunction against the Defendant directing the Defendant to cease and desist from working for Capgemini or any other clients of the Plaintiff company. Because of the illegal and mala-fide acts of the defendant the plaintiff has suffered immense losses in business and is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 10,62,990/- from the defendant as damages on account of breach of the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021, client poaching, soliciting business, business losses, acts of cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust and deception with the plaintiff. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- is claimed as damages from the defendant.CS No. 497/2023 Page 8 of 21
M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:21 +0530
3. Defendant was served with the summons. He appeared and filed written statement, wherein, he stated that he has joined the service of plaintiff on 15.07.2021 as a Senior Business Analysis and his drawn salary were Rs.60,000/- per month. It is submitted that the defendant to avail the better opportunity had officially resigned the office of plaintiff on 10.11.2022 and thereafter, the same was accepted by the plaintiff via e-mail on 22.11.2022.
3.1 After resign, the defendant has joined another company namely Capgemini Technology Service India Limited on 30.12.2022 and thereafter, the said company was contacted to the defendant via e- mail dated 09.12.2022, 12.12.2022, 14.12.2022, 19.12.2022, 21.12.2022, 26.12.2022 and 02.01.2023 to provide NOC regarding the joining the defendant with Capgemini Technology Service India Limited.
3.2 Thereafter, on 22.02.2023, the defendant has approached the plaintiff for his full and final settlement i.e. salary of one month and 21 days (in a tune of Rs.1,06,763/- approx.) and PF, Experience Letter, Relieving Letter, Form 16 & TDS Certificate etc. but the plaintiff avoid the issue on one pretext or other.
3.3 Thereafter, on 22.04.2023, the plaintiff with malafide and dishonest intention has sent a legal notice to the defendant instead of providing the above said full and final settlement of defendant and CS No. 497/2023 Page 9 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:23 +0530 also claim of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of breach of the Employment Agreement dated 15.07.2021, business losses, act of cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust and the deception with the plaintiff, which was duly replied by the defendant on 10.05.2023 via e-mail to the plaintiff.
3.4 The notice dated 22.04.2023 was sent by the plaintiff to grab the money and other service related documents of defendant. The such acts of the plaintiff are highly objectionable, unlawful and beyond law and the plaintiff is liable to pay the full and final settlement i.e. salary of a month and 21 days (i.e. in a tune of Rs.1,06,763/- approx.) and PF, Experience Letter, Relieving Letter, Form 16 & TDS Certificate etc. 3.5 It is submitted that the present suit is the counter blast/avoiding proceeding against the suit bearing No.978/23, titled as AMIT LOHIA VS M/S SPAWN VENTURES SERVICE PVT. LTD.
(RPA TECH) filed by the defendant against the plaintiff which is pending before Ld. Civil Judge for adjudication.
3.6 The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not approached to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true, correct and material facts from this Court and thus the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed u/o VII CS No. 497/2023 Page 10 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:26 +0530 Rule 11 of CPC as no cause of action ever arose in favour of plaintiff to file the present suit against the answering defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no concern with the present employment company of defendant i.e. Capgemini. The plaintiff company have never directly work with Capgemini, hence, no question has arose for any damages. It is submitted that the plaintiff company has concerned with QUES CORP LIMITED. The averments made in the plaint are denied in toto.
4. After completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents, following issues were framed vide order dated :-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant?
OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to a decree of damages as prayed? OPP
3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff
is liable to be dismissed for the reason as spelled out in para no. 7 & 8 of the WS?
OPD
4) Relief.
5. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Mohd. Adeel Akhtar as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit CS No. 497/2023 Page 11 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:28 +0530 Ex.PW-1/A. He supported the contents of plaint and relied on the following documents:-
A) Copy of Board Resolution dated 12.12.2023 Ex.PW1/A; B) Copy of email thread dated 22.02.2021 & 22.04.2021 Ex.PW1/B;
C) Copy of employment agreement dated 15.07.2021 entered between plaintiff company and the defendant Ex.PW1/C; D) Corresponding emails between the company and Capgemini with regard to the deployment and acceptance of defendant at Capgemini Ex.PW1/D;
E) Copies of salary slips of defendant Ex.PW1/E; F) Copy of email thread between the parties Ex.PW1/F; G) Mail exchanged dated 22.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 Ex.PW1/G; H) Screenshot of the LinkedIn profile of defendant Ex.PW1/H; I) Copies of the invoices raised by plaintiff company for defendant's services to Capgemini through Quess Corp Limited Ex.PW1/I;
J) Copy of legal notice dated 22.04.2023 issued by their company's to defendant Ex.PW1/J;
K) Copy of reply dated 10.05.2023 issued by defendant to legal notice dated 22.04.2023 Mark PW1/K. L) Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/L;
5.1 He was cross-examined on behalf of defendant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he is working with the plaintiff CS No. 497/2023 Page 12 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:31 +0530 company since November, 2019 and his current post is Manager in Finance. He deposed that he is B.Tech in Computer Science and he is aware with the content of the suit which is filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant. He deposed that the defendant was working with the Capgemini Company for a period of one year as a deployed employee for the post of Business Analyst through their company. He deposed that the plaintiff company has never issued any tax invoice against the Capgemini Company for service of defendant. He affirmed that Capgemini Company is not a direct client of plaintiff company for billing prospective. He volunteered that plaintiff company uses to raise bill for the defendant through intermediary company i.e. Quess Corp. Ltd. invoices Ex. PW1/I. He deposed that he cannot produce any document where he can show any loss suffered by the plaintiff. He deposed that they have claimed damage of Rs.11,00,000/- on the basis that the employee, if he would worked with Capgemini Company, he would have generated daily billing of Rs. 8052/- for a period of six month. He deposed that this is a amount of loss suffered by plaintiff. He deposed that there is no direct loss apart from above mentioned amount, however, they have a apprehension that if action is not taken against the defendant then other employees may also do the same thing. He affirmed that the defendant has given his resignation to the plaintiff company on 10.11.2022 which is accepted by the plaintiff company on 22.12.2022. He affirmed that defendant worked with plaintiff company till 22.12.2022. He affirmed that Capgemini Company has written e-mail CS No. 497/2023 Page 13 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:33 +0530 to the plaintiff company on this following date 09.12.2022, 12.12.2022, 14.12.2022, 19.12.2022, 21.12.2022 and 26.12.2022. The e-mail was written for seeking a no objection certificate to enable defendant to join Capgemini Company. He volunteered that however plaintiff has not issued the said NOC. He denied that plaintiff company was aware, before accepting the resignation, that defendant will join the Capgemini Company. He again said that the plaintiff company was not aware that defendant will directly join the Capgemini Company as they were in under impression that defendant will join Capgemini Company through them. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely qua the acceptance of knowledge regarding the defendant directly joining the Capgemini Company. He affirmed that they have not paid salary to defendant from 01.11.2022 till date of defendant resigning from the company.
He deposed that they cannot produce any document where they can show that Capgemini Company is their direct client. He again said that there is a intermediary company who acts between the plaintiff company and the client. He affirmed that they have never raised any bill to the Capgemini Company. He again said that they have raised bill to Quess Corp. Ltd. who is an intermediary company. He deposed that defendant has filed his full and final settlement process papers through e-mail, however, they have not made the payment since the defendant has violated the agreement. He volunteered that the defendant has filed the case against them for recovery of his dues from the company. He denied the suggestion that the present case is a CS No. 497/2023 Page 14 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 15:43:36 +0530 false case filed by the plaintiff company after defendant has raised demand for his full and final settlement for which a legal notice was sent and subsequently, a civil suit is filed against the plaintiff company. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff company has suffered no loss due to defendant joining Capgemini Company.
6. No other witness was produced by the plaintiff company and therefore, PE was closed vide order dated 23.05.2025 upon the statement of AR of the plaintiff company.
7. In defendant evidence, defendant examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
A) Ex.DW1/1 Photocopy of Adhaar card of defendant; B) Mark A copy of agreement dated 15.07.2021; C) Ex.DW1/3(colly.) copy of resignation and reply of acceptance, communication by a email dated 10.11.2022, 22.11.2022, 21.12.2022, 29.12.2022 and 30.12.2022;
D) Ex.DW1/4(colly.) copy of mails dated 09.12.2022, 12.12.2022, 14.12.2022, 19.12.2022, 21.12.2022, 26.12.2022 and 02.01.2023;
E) Ex.DW1/5(colly.) copy of email dated 22.02.2023 and its reminder dated 25.02.2023 by defendant to the plaintiff company for his FNF settlement.
F) Mark B copy of legal notice dated 22.04.2023; G) Mark C copy of reply to legal notice dated 10.05.2023;
CS No. 497/2023 Page 15 of 21M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:38 +0530 He was cross-examined on behalf of defendant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he is MBA (IT). He deposed that he is aware about the contents of his affidavit Ex DW-1/A. He affirmed that he had applied for the job in Plaintiff's company for the post of Sr. Business Analysit. He affirmed that at the time of job interview at plaintiff's company, he was already employed at Piramal Foundation. He affirmed that his interview was conducted by plaintiff's company. He denied the suggestion that his on job training was conducted by the plaintiff's company. He affirmed that he was deployed at Capgemini Company by the plaintiff company as a business analyst. He deposed that he has no knowledge about the payment made by Capgemini company to the plaintiff's company for his services. He volunteered that he used to receive salary from the plaintiff's company directly and he is not aware about the internal process of the company. He affirmed that he approached Capgemini Company for seeking employment during the time he was deployed there on behalf of plaintiff's company. He deposed that he did not inform anyone in plaintiff's company that he is seeking job at Capgemini Company during the tenure of his employment at plaintiff's company. He volunteered that Capgemini Company had approached multiple times the plaintiff's company for getting the NOC for his employment. He denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned any reason in his resignation vide email dated 10.11.2022. He volunteered that he had mentioned the reason for resignation as personal and professional growth. He deposed that he only have his CS No. 497/2023 Page 16 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:41 +0530 email trail dated 30.12.2022 which confirmed his resignation from the plaintiff's company and he has no other document permitting him to join Capgemini Company. He deposed that he had gone through the contents of the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021 entered between him and the plaintiff's company. He deposed that he is aware about the contents of paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the employment agreement dated 15.07.2021. He deposed that he is aware that he can not join any competitor, buyer/vendor of the plaintiff's company after his resignation. He deposed that he was made aware after joining the Capgemini Company that plaintiff's company had denied to provide NOC to Capgemini Company regarding his employment. He affirmed that having knowledge about the plaintiff company denying to give NOC, he continued working the Capgemini Company. He deposed that he is drawing a salary of Rs.90,000/-per month from Capgemini Company. He deposed that he did not know whether Capgemini Company is taking services from the plaintiff's company after his resignation. He deposed that he is working as a consultant in the Capgemini Company. He deposed that his scope of work is different from the work that he used to provide when he was deployed at Capgemini Company on behalf of plaintiff's company.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
ISSUE-WISE FINDING CS No. 497/2023 Page 17 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:43 +0530
9. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant? OPP From the evidence of PW-1, it s forthcoming that defendant was an employee of plaintiff company and he was deployed at Capgemini company by the plaintiff company though the salary was disbursed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff company used to issue invoice for the services of defendant in Capgemini Company through an intermediary company namely Quess Corp. Ltd. From the evidence of DW-1, it is coming to the fore that he approached the Capgemini Company for seeking employment and Capgemini approached multiple times the plaintiff company for getting their NOC regarding the defendant's employment in their company. The plaintiff would have filed a case of injunction against Capgemini company while they were approaching them through e-mails regularly for NOC for the defendant, however, the same has not been done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has averred that defendant is in breach of clause 11 and 12 of Ex. PW-1/C i.e. the agreement of employment between both. The said clauses pertains "Non-competition" and "Solicitation". However, there is no evidence on record which could suggest that Capgemini is a client of the plaintiff company as PW-1 categorically stated that he has no CS No. 497/2023 Page 18 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:45 +0530 document to show that the Capgemini is their direct client. Therefore, the clause 11 and 12 of Ex. PW-1/C is not applicable to the defendant regarding Capgemini. Further, it is pertinent to note that defendant's work profile in Capgemini is different from the plaintiff's company. The resignation of the defendant was accepted without any objection. However, what is forthcoming that defendant's legitimate dues were denied by the plaintiff company for which defendant had to file law suit against the plaintiff. Had there been a breach of employment agreement by the defendant, the Capgemini Company would not have pursued the plaintiff company for NOC for defendant. The Capgemini by way of several e-mails approached the plaintiff company for no objection certificate to enable the defendant to join Capgemini Company. Defendant was not barred from seeking employment in the company for a different work profile. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances in the light of evidence adduced by parties, there has been no breach of employment agreement by the defendant. The prayer for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant is declined. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages?
OPP From the evidence of PW-1, it is forthcoming that Capgemini is not a direct client of plaintiff from billing perspective.
CS No. 497/2023 Page 19 of 21M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:47 +0530 Plaintiff was raising bills to intermediary company i.e. Quess Corp. Ltd. for the service of the defendant. Plaintiff company was paying salary to the defendant. PW-1 has stated that he has sought damages of Rs.11,00,000/- on the basis that if the defendant would have worked with Capgemini Company, the plaintiff would have generated money at the rate of Rs.8052/- per day for six months. He also said that there is no direct loss apart from the said amount. Since the defendant has not been found in breach of clause 11 and 12 of Ex. PW-1/C, the claim of damages on account of loss of money due to his employment is also not sustainable. The plaintiff is not entitled for any damages from the defendant. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3
(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for the reason as spelled out in para no. 7 & 8 of the WS? OPD However, no evidence has been led by the defendant but on a plain reading of the plaint, a valid cause of action is subsisting in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present plaint. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NO .4 RELIEF:
From the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to the costs.CS No. 497/2023 Page 20 of 21
M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.12 15:43:50 +0530
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMAPANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.12 15:43:53 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
12.02.2026 DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal NDD/PHC/ND/12.02.2026 CS No. 497/2023 Page 21 of 21 M/s. Spawn Ventures Services Pvt. Ltd. (RPATECH) Vs. Amit Lohia