Delhi District Court
Avinash Razdan Bindra vs Ranjit Kumar Jha on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH-I,
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI
CS No.160/2025
AVINASH RAZDAN BINDRA
S/o Sh. Bansi Lal Bindra
R/o F-302, Siddh Apartments 107
I. P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi - 110092. ...........Plaintiff
Versus
RANJIT KUMAR JHA
R/o RZF - 763/30, Street No.-05
PO Dwarka Sector-08
PS Palam, Raj Nagar-2
Dwarka Sec - 8, Bagdola
South West, New Delhi-110077 .........Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.03.2025
Date of Reserving Order : 18.02.2026
Date of judgment : 19.02.2026
EX-PARTE J U D G M E N T
1.The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent & mandatory injunction and for damages, against the defendant.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this suit are as under:
(a). The plaintiff is the Group Chief Executing Officer of Delhi Cargo Service Centre Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as DCSC) which is one of the premier air cargo handling service providers at various airports of India, located at Cargo Terminal 2, Cargo Complex, IGI Airport New CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 1 of 7 Delhi-37. The defendant is a former employee of DCSC. He was employed as Manager, Human Resources (HR) w.e.f. 27.08.2024 and was ultimately terminated from his service on 24.01.2025 due to his irregular attendance and failure to perform the duties assigned to him.
(b) Plaintiff further stated that the termination was communicated to the defendant vide termination letter dated 28.01.2025 through speed post and e-mail, after following due process and in accordance with the established rules and regulations of the organization.
(c) Plaintiff further stated that the defendant with an intention to tarnish his reputation and damage his social standing and goodwill is making totally malicious, false, incorrect and defamatory allegations against him after termination from the job.
(d) Plaintiff further stated that the defendant's actions are motivated by vengeance and are intended to cause him undue harassment and damage to his professional and personal standing. Further, on 01.02.2025, defendant sent an email to multiple recipients containing false, defamatory and malicious statements directed against him. Further, he stated that the defendant has deliberately worded the said email to tarnish his reputation, cast aspersions on his professional integrity and cause undue harm to his personal and social standing.
(e) Plaintiff further stated that the allegations made in the said email are vague, baseless and entirely devoid of truth or substance and defendant has made those false assertions without any shred of evidence, solely with the intent to malign, harass, and defame him.
(f) Plaintiff further stated that the act of the defendant has publicly defamed him by deliberately disseminating the defamatory email to CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 2 of 7 numerous persons. He had also sent the said e-mail dated 01.02.2025 to his colleagues, peers and the wider professional community.
(g) Plaintiff further stated that the act of the defendant has caused severe and irreparable harm to his reputation, gravely undermining public trust and tarnishing his standing in both professional and social spheres. So he served a legal notice dated 07.02.2025 upon the defendant and thereby asked him to issue a written public apology, tagging all recipients of the said email dated 01.02.2025 but the defendant neither gave reply to the notice nor acted in the manner asked for the same.
(h). Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit for following reliefs:
A) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from uploading, airing, publishing or propagating in any mode or manner either orally, in writing, audio, video, or telecasting any video, material, article, report, views report etc. on any Internet Platform, social media or any other medium which relates to plaintiff and have the effect of lowering the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the general public. B) A decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to forthwith remove/take down the defamatory email dated 01.02.2025 from the internet platform and issue a written public apology, tagging all recipients who were included in the said email dated 01.02.2025. C) A decree for damages to the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.
D) Cost of the suit.
3. Summons of the suit was served upon defendant on 20.08.2025 through electronic mode i.e. WhatsApp and E-mail. Despite service of summons, the defendant neither appeared nor filed his written statement, so his defence was struck off by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 15.10.2025 and on the very same day, he was also proceeded to ex parte.
4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as the only witness as PW-1.
5. PW1 led his evidence on affidavit which he tendered as Ex.PW1/A. CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 3 of 7 He generally deposed on the same lines as that of the plaint. He also relied upon documents i.e. copy of termination letter of defendant dated 28.01.2025 as Mark PW1/1; copy of printout of defamatory email dated 01.02.2025 sent by defendant to various employees as Mark PW1/2; office copy of his legal notice dated 07.02.2025 sent to the defendant as Ex. PW1/3; copy of printout of email dated 07.02.2025 showing delivery of the legal notice as Mark PW1/4; copy of printout of whatsapp chat dated 07.02.2025 as Mark PW1/5 and his certificate/affidavit under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as Ex. PW1/6.
6. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Vikrant Mehta and Mr. Digvijay Chaudhary- Ld. Counsels for plaintiff and have perused the record meticulously.
7. PW1/plaintiff in his testimony had reiterated the averments made in the plaint and further sworn that defendant- who was employed as a Manager (HR) with DCSC, was terminated from his service on 24.01.2025 vide termination letter Mark PW1/1 due to his irregular attendance and failure to perform duties. Plaintiff also testified that after termination from his job, defendant not only made defamatory allegations/remarks against him with an intention to tarnish his reputation, social standing and goodwill but also sent an email Mark PW1/2 containing false, defamatory and malicious statements against him to the multiple recipients on 01.02.2025.
8. PW1 placed on record defendant's termination letter Mark PW1/1 and his email Mark PW1/2 alongwith his certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (earlier Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act) Ex. PW1/6. It is clear that defendant sent email Mark PW1/2 containing defamatory and malicious statements against plaintiff CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 4 of 7 who is Group CEO in DCSC to the multiple recipients on 01.02.2025 i.e after termination of his job as Manager, (HR) of DCSC w.e.f. 24.01.2025. Some of the contents of the email are nothing but defamatory and malicious statements against the plaintiff who is Group CEO of DCSC. The said contents are read as under:
"...It has come to my notice that key individuals, including the CEO Mr. Razdan are using absurd language to all the reliable stakeholders in the name of their mother & sister and he is 200% involved in all the corruption in your organization."
"As I have gone through his past records with his last organization whereas my known person verifies the fact that he has worked like a termite...."
"His key interest in money making from employee hiring, Khanna's agreement, Ayus Hospitality, paying Mr. Gupta, purchasing tiles and other things for CEO home and many more."
"Since my joining till January 2025 I have worked here with full dedication and devotion without getting any appointment letter. As a concern, the CEO has never been interested in employee development rather than their group of gang's development. Gang's hierarchy will share you for better understanding later".
9. The deposition of PW1 remains uncontroverted and unchallenged. The defendant neither appeared nor filed the written statement. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him that had he appeared in the witness box, he would not have been able to deny the allegations of plaintiff in the plaint and in the evidence, thus, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff/PW1.
10. In view of testimony of PW1 and the material placed on record, I find that the plaintiff has been able to establish his case on preponderance of probabilities that defendant had sent an email on 01.02.2025 to multiple persons with the sole intention to tarnish the unblemished reputation of plaintiff/PW1, which caused irreparable damage to his professional CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 5 of 7 standing and social credibility. So the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent & mandatory injunction, as he prayed in the suit.
11. As regards to the relief of damages to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- is concerned, PW1 has not led any evidence as to what financial loss he suffered by the act of the defendant/ by defamatory allegations/remarks made against him in email dated 01.02.2025. Further, PW1 has not proven as to how he quantify the amount of damages as claimed in the suit. But the fact remain that the defendant with his intention made defamatory allegations/remarks against the plaintiff. He sent an email Mark PW1/2 to the multiple persons working in same organization where plaintiff is working as a group CEO to tarnish his reputation, social standing, and goodwill. Hence, I quantify the exemplary damages as Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the plaintiff by the defamatory remarks of the defendant.
RELIEF
12. In view of above discussion, the suit stands decreed for the following reliefs :
a) Defendant is restrained from uploading, airing, publishing or propagating in any mode or manner either orally, in writing, audio, video, or telecasting any video, material, article, report, views report etc. on any internet platform, social media or any other medium which relates to plaintiff and have the effect of lowering the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the general public.
b) Defendant is also directed to give his written apology through email to the plaintiff and recipients of email dated 01.02.2025 regarding withdrawal of his defamatory remarks made against the plaintiff in email dated 01.02.2025 .
c) Further defendant is directed to pay the damages of CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 6 of 7 Rs.3,00,000/ to the plaintiff for his mental agony and sufferings.
d) The cost of the suit is awarded to the plaintiff.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (RAVINDER SINGH-1)
on 19th Day of February, 2026 District Judge-03, Court No.206,
RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER
SINGH
N/B, East District, Karkardooma
SINGH Date: 2026.02.19 15:10:27 +0530
Courts, Delhi
CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page No. 7 of 7