Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Letter dated 18th August, 2000 from the defendant to the plaintiff (Ex. PW-1/2) whereby the retainership of the plaintiff was increased to Rs.44,000/-. In addition to the Retainership Fee of Rs.44,000/-, the plaintiff was also entitled to a fixed commission of Rs.1,55,000/- per annum.
(iii) Letter dated 23rd June, 2001 from defendant to the plaintiff whereby the retainership agreement was extended by another one year with effect from 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002 and the Retainership Fee was also increased to Rs.48,500/- and the commission was increased to Rs.1,70,000/- (Ex. PW-1/3).

(vi) Letter dated 22nd September, 2005 - extension of the retainership from 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2006. The terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 19th September, 2002 remained unchanged. (Ex. RW- 1/6)

(vii) Letter dated 28th March, 2007 - extension of retainership from 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008. It is pertinent to mention that vide said letter alongwith the retainership fee, the commission was also increased to Rs.3,87,000/-. All other terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 19th September, 2002 remained unchanged. (Ex. PW-1/7)

25. It is submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff vide the suit is seeking to specifically enforce the contract of personal service which is not permissible in law as the plaintiff was admittedly not an employee of the defendant and was on a retainership basis for which the contract was renewed every year for a period of one year. It was therefore clearly „contract of personal service.‟

26. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants that the plaintiff is demanding the amount from the period of the retainership contract which was renewed from 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008 with retainer of Rs.90,000/- per month and commission of Rs.3,87,000/- per annum which was increased to Rs.5,67,000/- per annum as the defendant could not have terminated the retainership contract on 18th May, 2007, i.e. the entire amount for the contractual period, the entire retainership fee as if the arrangement had continued till 31st March, 2008, hence even, as per the case of the plaintiff himself he is seeking to enforce the contract of personal services which is not permissible under law.

37. The monthly retainership was Rs.90,000/-. He was not entitled to any earned leave etc. as claimed by him which is evident from the perusal of the retainership contract and also as admittedly he was not an employee of the defendant. He was also not entitled to any service tax also as claimed which is also evident from the perusal of the retainership contract.

38. In view of my findings arrived in issues No.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff, consequently, issue No.3 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1. The suit is of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and against the defendant No.1. Suit against the other defendants is dismissed. The plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.16,47,000/- as total outstanding and further interest @9% per annum only as the interest claimed by the plaintiff is on higher side as felt by this Court. The plaintiff would be entitled to interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. The plaintiff is also entitled for costs.