Delhi District Court
M/S Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd vs Rahul Dhaka on 29 August, 2025
In the Court of Shri Ajay Kumar Malik
Judge-Small Cause Court, Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Guardian Judge of North East District at Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 322/20
CNR No. DLNE03-001188-2020
In the matter of:-
M/S BITS N BYTES SOFT PVT. LTD
(Through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Sone Lal, Team Lead)
Having Office at: Plot No. 113, 3rd Floor, Sector-44,
Gurugram-122-002, Haryana.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
RAHUL DHAKA
S/o Sh. Jai Kumar Dhaka
R/o H. No. A-69/1, Gali No. 1,
Near Arwachin Public School,
Shakti Nagar East, Karawal Nagar,
Gokulpuri, Delhi-110094.
...Defendant
Date of Institution : 27.10.2020
Reserved for Judgment : 29.08.2025
Date of Decision : 29.08.2025
Suit for Recovery of money with pendentelite and
future interest @18% per annum, consequential
damages/compensation along with permanent injunction
against the defendant.
CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 1 of 11
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY
KUMAR MALIK
KUMAR Date:
MALIK 2025.08.29
16:28:20 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum to pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages/compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the actions of the defendant, to pass a decree to order the defendant to handover all documents/data/information especially customer data/details in his possession kept in any form including on emails, CD, DVD, cloud data, laptop, computer, phone, pen drive, tablet etc. to the plaintiff, and to pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff thereby restraining the defendant from unauthorized misuse of privileged/confidential data inlcluding client lists of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's Case
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing products and services for passenger safety by using IOT and machine-to-machine communications, amongst other sevices and products. It is stated that the defendant joined the company on 04.02.2019 at the post of Key Account Manager and he was entrusted with significant responsibilities including handling of important accounts for the plaintiff. It is stated that CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 2 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date:
MALIK 2025.08.29
16:28:28 +0530
the terms of his appointment, which are reduced into writing in the Employee Handbook were duly explained to the defendant by the HR Manager who thereafter got the signatures of the defendant on the acknowledgement register. It is stated that the defendant was absent from work without any prior permission from the plaintiff company. The defendant had sent an email dt 24.12.2019 regarding his resignation and promising that he will serve the mandatory one-month notice period, as provided under clause 1.4 of the Employee Handbook . The defendant was well aware that the said one month notice period was to end on 24.01.2020 and the same was also duly informed to the defendant via email 26.12.2019 by the office of the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to carry out the work assigned to him and the defendant has not been attending office since 28.12.2019 despite making a specific commitment with regard of serving the mandatory notice period. It is stated that as per the agreed terms of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 32,000/- equivalent to his one month salary (CTC) to the plaintiff due to his failure of not serving advance one month notice to the company. It is stated that the defendant has further failed to handover sensitive/confidential records pertaining to the company and their customer/staff, despite making a specific commitment in this regard vide email dated 24.12.2019. It is stated that when the defendant failed to handover the said information/charge to the plaintiff and also failed to make payment of the amount equivalent of one month salary, the plaintiff issued legal notice CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 3 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date:
MALIK 2025.08.29
16:28:35 +0530
dated 28.01.2020 to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant issued a reply dated 13.02.2020 to the said legal notice. It is stated that the defendant has till date failed to handover all documents/data/information expecially customer data/details in his possession kept in any form including on emails. CD, DVD, cloud data, laptop, computer, phone, pen drive, tablet etc. It is stated that the defendant has breached the contract between him and the plaintiff company. It is stated that plaintiff suffered financial loss to the plaintiff company as some key accounts could not be managed by the remaining staff due to the unauthorized and unannounced absence of the defendant and this directly caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This loss is directly attributable to the unauthorized absence of the defendant and hence, the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in damages/compensation to the plaintiff company. Hence, the present suit for recovery and permanent injunction.
Defendant's Case
3. It is stated that no appointment letter was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff nor there was any agreement was executed or signed by the defendant nor any employee hand book was signed. The defendant had resigned on 24.12.2019 and had sent the email to the plaintiff. The defendant worked diligently & honestly till he remained in the job. It is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of actionand the suit is liable to be CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 4 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date:
2025.08.29 MALIK 16:28:43 +0530 rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC and the suit has not been filed, signed and verified by the proper person is liable to be rejected.
Issues
4. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 03.08.2023, the following issues were framed by learned Predecessor of this court:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of money as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for concealment of material facts and not approaching the court with clean hands? OPD
4. Whether the suit is without any cause of action?
5. Relief?
Plaintiff Evidence
5. Authorized Representative Sh. Sone Lal, examined himself as PW1, who in his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PW1/A reiterated on oath the contents of the plaint. He has relied upon document:-
i Copy of board resolution dated 28.09.2020 in favour of AR along with copy of aadhar card of the AR of the plaintiff are Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 5 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date: MALIK 2025.08.29 16:28:52 +0530 ii. Copy of master data of of the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/2.
iii. Copy of e-mail correspondence between plaintiff and defendant in this regard is Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
iv. The legal notice dated 28.01.2020 issued by the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/4.
v. The reply dated 13.02.2020 on behalf of defendant to the legal notice is Ex.PW1/5.
vi. The certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/6.
6. Ms. Priya Rao got examined as PW2, who in her affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PW2/A reiterated on oath the contents of the affidavit. She has relied upon document:-
i. A copy of appointment/offer letter dated 23.01.2019 issued to the defendant is Ex.PW2/A. ii. A copy of the employee handbook along with the acknowledgement register is Ex.PW2/2 (colly).
iii. A copy of salary slip of the defendant reflecting his salary and other emoluments drawn is Ex.PW2/3.
iv. A copy of warning letter dated 28.08.2019 issued to the defendant is Ex.PW2/4.
CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 6 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date: MALIK 2025.08.29 16:28:59 +0530
7. It is pertinent to mention here that despite opportunity being given to defendant, he failed to cross-examine plaintiff witness, so his right to cross examine the witness of plaintiff was closed on 01.03.2025. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for defendant's evidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the right to lead defence evidence was also closed vide order dated 19.03.2025 in view of his conduct.
8. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments have been heard. I have gone through the judicial record.
10. Now I shall give my issue-wise findings.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of money as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove issue no. 1 was upon plaintiff. In order to discharge its onus the plaintiff got examined 2 witness in total.
PW 1 proved the master data/e-mail record of their company as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 wherein defendant acknowledged the email of PW 2 thereby admitting the notice period of one month but also mentioned his inablity to serve the notice period. The master data of plaintiff is also supported with Ex.PW1/6 i.e. the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The defendant neither raised any objection to master data of plaintiff nor to CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 7 of 11 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR KUMAR MALIK Date: 2025.08.29 MALIK 16:29:07 +0530 mode of proof. PW2 also proved the employee hand book and salary slip of defendant as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Plaintiff also proved the service of legal notice as Ex.PW1/4. PW2 also proved the appointment/offer letter dated 23.01.2019 as Ex.PW2/1 thereby specifying the quantum of salary offered to defendant which was accepted by defendant vide Ex.PW2/3. The defendant not even cross examined any of PW so the testimony of PW 1 and PW2 remained untilted and uncontroverted. There are no reason to disbelieve the testimony of both the witnesses examined by plaintiff and hence plaintiff successfully discharged his onus to prove the issue no. 1 to the extent that the defendant has not served the notice period of 1 month so, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 32,000/- along with simple interest @8% p.a. from the date of filiing of suit till its realization but the plaintiff not led any evidence to prove any damage suffered by plaintiff due to non serving of notice period by defendant. The plaintiff neither got examined any witness to this affect nor proved any documentary evidence to this effect therefore, no compensation can be granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 32,000/- along with simple interest @8% p.a. from the date of filiing of suit till its realization.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 8 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date:
MALIK 2025.08.29
16:29:14 +0530
The onus to prove issue no. 2 was upon plaintiff. In order to discharge its onus the plaintiff got examined 2 witness in total. PW 1 proved the master data/e-mail record of their company as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 wherein defendant acknowledged the email of PW 2 thereby admitting the notice period of one month but also mentioned his inablity to serve the notice period. The master data of plaintiff is also supported with Ex.PW1/6 i.e. the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The defendant neither raised any objection to master data of plaintiff nor to mode of proof. PW2 also proved the employee hand book and salary slip of defendant as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Plaintiff also proved the service of legal notice as Ex.PW1/4. PW2 also proved the appointment/offer letter dated 23.01.2019 as Ex.PW2/1 thereby specifying the quantum of salary offered to defendant which was accepted by defendant vide Ex.PW2/3. During course of evidence PW1 and PW2 both deposed that defendant has to handover the charge including client/customer details and all the documents/material, information, date (in both physical and digital/electronic form) which has been in possession of defendant during course of his employment which also included sensitive/confidential record pertaining to company and their customers/staff but none of PW speficied and brought on record that how and when or by which mode the customer details were handed over to defendant. It is also not specified that whether these details were in system operated by defendant or was lying in cloud. If it is the part of system or any annexure/attachment thereto then whether it is in CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 9 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date:
MALIK 2025.08.29
16:29:23 +0530
form of ROM or EPROM and was also in exclusive possession of defendant. If it is in cloud form then whether it is exclusively accessible by defendant only and was also in portable form in cyber world. PW also not specified that how much and which part of data was in physical form and the quantity thereof so as to get injunction against the defendant the PW also failed to prove that at what point of time that data/material was exclusively handed over in the custody of defendant against proper receiving in writing so as to injunct the defendant to return the same to plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to discharge their onus to prove issue no. 2 and hence, issue no. 2 is decided against plaintiff.
3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for concealment of material facts and not approaching the court with clean hands? OPD
4. Whether the suit is without any cause of action?
Issue no. 3 and 4 are taken up together. The onus to prove issue no. 3 and 4 was upon defendant. In order to discharge his onus the defendant not examined any witness from his side, moreover the defendant not even cross examined both the PW so as to get any admission from PW so as to substantiate the defense raised by him while filing written statement. The defendant failed to discharge his onus to prove issue no. 3 and 4, hence, issue no. 3 and 4 are decided against the defendant.
CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 10 of 11 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR MALIK KUMAR Date: MALIK 2025.08.29 16:29:30 +0530 5. Relief?
The plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 32,000/- along with simple interest @8% p.a. from the date of filiing of suit till its realization.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on 29.08.2025.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
ASCJ/JSCC/G.Judge N/E
Karkardooma Court Delhi
CS No. 322/20 M/s Bits Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rahul Dhaka Page no. 11 of 11
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY
KUMAR MALIK
KUMAR Date:
MALIK 2025.08.29
16:29:39 +0530