Delhi District Court
M/S Go Processing Ltd vs Mr. Aditya Saini on 22 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON:
ADJ-05 (SOUTH-EAST): SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS No. 11950/16
CNR No. DLSE01-010010-2016
In the matter of :-
M/s Go Processing Ltd.
A-275, 2nd Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020
(Through its Authorized Representative) ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Aditya Saini
S/o Madan Saini
160, BMK, Girinagar,
New Delhi
Also At:-
07, Two Room Set,
Sugar Mill Colony,
Shahbad (M),
Kurushetra (136135) ... Defendant
Date of institution : 21.12.2016
Reserved for Judgment : 22.08.2023
Date of decision : 22.08.2023
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AMOUNTING RS.20,00,000/- (RUPEES
TWENTY LAKHS ONLY) FOR THE ACTS OF COMMITTING
CHEATING, FORGERY, COMMISSION OF THEFT OF
CONFIDENTIAL AND RESTRICTED DATA AND CAUSING
DISREPUTE TO THE GOODWILL AND REPUTATION OF THE
PLAINTIFF COMPANY.
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present case, plaintiff has prayed to award damages amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- for committing the acts of cheating, forgery, commission of theft of confidential and restricted data and causing disrepute to the goodwill of the plaintiff company in favour of the plaintiff along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the entire amount. It is further prayed to direct the defendant to provide exact details of all the data/information in the unauthorized possession of the defendant that belongs to the plaintiff company, and being misused and dissemmated by the defendant against the plaintiff company. Further, it is prayed to restrain the defendant from forwarding the confidential and restricted data/information of the plaintiff company to any other person and if so, provide the details of the same. It is further prayed to provide ex-parte ad-Interim relief in terms of prayer clause 9 (c) and cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant.
2. Brief facts for the disposal of the present case are that it is stated in the plaint that suit has been filed through Ms. Priya Mittal who is authorized by way of Board of Resolution dated 19.12.2016, passed by the Directors of the plaintiff company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at A-275, 2nd Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110020. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff company is a reputed brand and is India's fastest growing aggregator for digital payment products and distribution with its CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 2 of 21 classic 20+ services as well as having a retailer ship chain over 35,000+ retailers having their presence of Pan India presence, 400+ resellers and over 1,000+ fortunes companies, having annual turnover of more than 30 millions INR, and customer base of 10 millions
3. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant applied for the post of "UX Designer/Front End Developer" vide job application dated 04.08.2016 which was thoroughly scrutinized and shortlisted for the interview by the plaintiff company and thereafter, the defendant was appointed for the above said post vide Executive Employment Agreement & Letter of Intent dated 29.08.2016 by the plaintiff company. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant, at the time of applying for the aforesaid post of "UX Designer/Front End Developer" portrayed to the plaintiff company that he was previously working with company named 7SPAN TECHNOLOGIES, #408, Sidd HR Manager at Zori, Nr. Atrial Business Mall, Sargasan Circle, Gandhinagar-382421, Gujarat, India at a handsome salary for an amount of Rs.22,000 (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) per month (being received in cash with not any deduction towards EPF/ESI) for which the defendant produced his offer of employment letter dated 28.06.2015, issued by the previous employer of the defendant.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff company having no room for suspicion or doubt over the production of the aforesaid documents by the defendant for the same post for which the defendant was previously employed, the plaintiff company appointed him CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 3 of 21 at the post of "UX Designer/Front End Developer" vide its Executive Employment Agreement and Letter of Intent, both dated 28.08.2016, for which the defendant also produced his salary slips for record for the month of April to June, 2016 @ Rs.22,000/-. It is further stated in the plaint that during the course of employment, the defendant was found to be absent from 24.09.2016 (2nd Half) to 26.09.2016 from the employment of the plaintiff company, whereby on 27.09.2016, he was called upon by the HR Manager of the plaintiff company to reveal the reasons for the aforesaid unauthorized absenteeism for which the defendant sought an exemption on the ground of medical reasons on the pretext of severe viral fever and other medical ailments. It is further stated in the plaint that however, the HR Manager presuming the same to be genuine did not dwell into the aforesaid issue and ignored the same but the defendant once again from 07.10.2016 (2 Half to 12.10.2016 (1st Half) remained unauthorizedly absent from the employment of the plaintiff company, once again on the pretext of medical ailment, and resumed the employment of the plaintiff company on 12.10.2016 (2nd Half). It is further stated in the plaint that when the HR Manager of the plaintiff company sought medical documents qua the defendant's ailments and the medical prescriptions to the said effect, the defendant made false and frivolous assertions qua being certain CT Scans, MRI etc. being undertaken for his health issues, however the report of the same was not submitted by the defendant, which raised serious suspicion and doubt over his aforesaid excuse of medical ailments and health issues. It is further stated in the plaint that the above said issue of unauthorized absenteeism of the defendant from the plaintiff company was brought to CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 4 of 21 the kind notice of the management by the HR Manager, whereby it was directed by the management to the HR Manager to make thorough inquiry for the same as it has a serious bearing over the working environment and professional growth of the plaintiff company vis-a-vis the entire employees and staff of the plaintiff company.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that upon the subsequent inquiry, it came to the notice of the HR Manager of the plaintiff company through the colleagues of the defendant that the defendant had made an unauthorized access to the confidential and restricted data of the plaintiff company which was entrusted upon him, which had also being unauthorizedly taken away by the defendant during his tenure till 07.10.2016, by uploading the same on his personal email IDs which was noticed while he was having access to the website of his personal IDs i.e. www.gmail.com. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant was called on the even date (ie. 12.10.2016) by the management and the HR Manager of the plaintiff company to render an explanation as to the unauthorized absenteeism on the ground of medical leave as well as the commission of pilfering of confidential and restricted data of the company whereby the defendant unequivocally accepted the act of unauthorized absenteeism on the pretext of fake and frivolous medical ground vis-a-vis the act of commission of theft of pilferage of confidential and restricted data of the plaintiff company being entrusted upon the defendant, without any approval or permission from the management or HR Manager of the plaintiff company and uploaded the same from his personal email IDs i.e [email protected] and CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 5 of 21 forwarded the same to his personal email ID i.e adityasaini [email protected] vide e-mails dated 14.09.2016 (two e-mails), 15.09.2016, 17.09.2016, 21.09.2016, 22.09.2016, and 24.09.2016. It is further stated in the plaint that pursuant to the commission of above said unequivocal admission of cheating and fraud qua the defendant's medical illness and commission of pilferage of confidential and restricted data, the defendant also indisputably admitted that at the time of applying for the job application and interview dated 04.08.2008, and at the time of signing of Executive Employment Agreement & Letter of Intent dated 29.08.2016, the defendant also played a fraud upon the plaintiff company by fabrication of his Offer Of Employment dated 28.06.2015 issued by the defendant's previous employer i.e 7SPAN TECHNOLOGIES, #408, Sidd HR Manager at Zori, Nr. Atrial Business Mall, Sargasan Circle, Gandhinagar-382421, Gujarat, India whereby the defendant cheated upon the plaintiff company by changing the figures of his monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month at the time of said appointment through the said Offer of Employment dated 28.06.2015 to an amount of Rs.22,000/- per month for which the defendant even provided a photocopy of his original offer of employment dated 28.06.2015 whereby he categorically reflected his monthly salary being Rs.17,000 per month instead of the forged and fabricated offer of employment dated 28.06.2015 amounting Rs.22,000/- per month being deposited with the plaintiff company. It is further stated in the plaint that on thorough investigation and inquiry upon the plaintiff company from the defendant, the defendant placed on record his salary slips for the month of July till September, 2015 at the rate of Rs. 17,000 /- per month.
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 6 of 216. It is further stated in the plaint that thereafter, when the defendant was confronted qua his act of cheating and fraud with the plaintiff company on various counts. It is further stated in the plaint that vide letter of even date (i.e. 12.10.2016), the defendant tendered his unequivocal and irrefutable admission of commission of pilferage of confidential and restricted data of the plaintiff company, and thereafter, with his own wisdom tendered his resignation vide separate letter dated 12.10.2016 with immediate effect on the ground of ill health and stating medical reasons thereby, which fact was even quite surprising to the plaintiff company, as the defendant himself executed an Executive Employment Agreement with retrospective effect dated 29.08.2016 for his salary amounting Rs.18,000/- per month, and just after few hours the defendant tendered his aforesaid resignation. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff company after taking into account the repetitive, malafide and illegal acts of cheating and defrauding the plaintiff company by the defendant, which resultantly caused a lot of humiliation and harassment to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company was constrained to issue a Legal Notice dated 26.10.2016 through its counsels, which was sent through Registered AD and Email.
7. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant in response to the said Legal Notice that was issued by the plaintiff company sent a reply to the Legal Notice dated 03.11.2016 wherein the defendant vaguely denied all the above said acts of cheating, forgery and theft of CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 7 of 21 documents thereby tacitly admitting the same. It is further stated in the plaint that again, the defendant whilst Demand Notice dated 05.11.2016 raised a bogus claim with regard to the salary and did not provide any explanation qua his act of cheating, forgery and theft of documents against the plaintiff company. It is further stated in the plaint that consequent acts of defendant for committing Criminal Misappropriation Of Property, Criminal Breach Of Trust, Cheating, Forgery, Mischief, Theft of Property, etc. for which the plaintiff company preferred to file a criminal complaint dated 11.11.2016 received at PS Okhla Industrial Area vide DD no. 47B dated 16.11.2016.
8. It is further stated in the plaint that as no action was taken by the police officials at PS Okhla Industrial Area on the criminal complaint dated 11.11.2016 filed vide D.D. no. 47B dated 16.11.2016 by the plaintiff company and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to forward the said complaint to the DCP (South-East) at Police Station Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 sent through Couric services bearing CN No. Z02699988 dated 10.12.2016, for necessary actions of the aforesaid complaint.
9. It is further stated in the plaint that the acts of the defendant are in sheer violation of the Human Resource protocols, employment standards and regulations etc. as mentioned in his appointment letter dated 29.08.2016, which has a serious bearing over the whole working strength as well as other employees and staff of the plaintiff company, which has also created serious suspicion and doubt upon the work the CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 8 of 21 defendant had delivered within the tenure of his employment, and further loss and damage which has caused a dent on the integrity of the defendant's unauthorized access to the aforesaid confidential and restricted data and thereby uploading the same on his personal email Id's and considering the defendant's previous conduct of commission of cheating and forgery since inception of his Offer of Employment Letter dated 28.06.2015, which the plaintiff company cannot rule out any doubt or suspicion that he could have disseminated or further circulated the aforesaid confidential and restricted data of the plaintiff company unauthorizedly and illegally, which could cause an immense loss to the business as well as reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff company, which is calculated at this juncture for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- for which present suit is filed against the defendant. It is further stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose on various dates.
10. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant has further casted a stigma on the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff company and thereby defamed plaintiff company within its organization before its staff and employees and public at large for which the defendant is liable to be prosecuted and put to trial and hence, prayed that suit be decreed.
11. The defendant has contested the present suit by filing written statement of his defence taking preliminary objection wherein defendant has stated that the present suit cannot be deemed to be duly "duly instituted" in wake of provisions of Order IV of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further stated in the written statement in preliminary CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 9 of 21 objections that the suit suffers the vice of "institution of suit" as per law. On merits, it is stated in the written statement that the defendant was offered the job by the plaintiff vide letter of intent as well as Executive Employment Agreement dated 29.08.2016 which was duly accepted by the defendant and started working with the plaintiff on the post of UI Developer w.e.f 29.08.2016 on the monthly salary of Rs.23,000/-. It is further stated in the written statement that after the completion of one month, the plaintiff executed another Executive Employment Agreement in back date i.e 29.08.2016 with decreasing the salary of the defendant at Rs.18,000/- per month. It is further stated in the written statement that when the defendant raised the objections with regard to the reduction in salary, he was not allowed to continue with the services. It is further stated in the written statement that on the instructions of his senior officials, the defendant had disclosed the password of his personal e-mail ID to them, however, the defendant later on came to know that the plaintiff not only misused the personal e-mail IDs of the defendant but also committed forgery in his previous appointment letters, merely to fabricate evidence and to extort money from the defendant by way of the present litigation. It is further stated in the written statement that on 12.10.2016, the defendant had resigned from the job under false assurances that he would be paid his due arrears within two weeks and the plaintiff also got the apology letter written from the defendant on the same day under influence and coercion. Other allegations of the plaint have been denied and disputed by the defendant and prayed for dismissal of the suit with heavy cost.
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 10 of 2112. The plaintiff did not file replication to the written statement of defendant.
13. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff has filed affidavit towards admission/denial of documents on 13.12.2017. It is also a matter of record that on 13.03.2018, the defendant has also filed affidavit towards admission/denial of documents. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 03.07.2018 for trial as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff got executed certain documents from the defendant under undue influence or coercion and its effect? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff misused the details of e-mail ID and password furnished by the defendant and fabricated the letter dated 28.06.2015?
OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff forcibly got executed the letter dated 29.08.2016 (back-dated) showing the salary of Rs.18,000? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of compensation/damages as claimed for? OPP
14. The plaintiff company examined Mrs. Priya Mittal (AR of the company) as PW-1. PW1 has relied upon the documents Ex. PW-1/A (Original Board Resolution) to PW-1/N. Original Board of Resolution as Ex. PW-1/A. Job application dated 04.08.2016 Exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. The copy of the executive employment agreement dated 29.08.2016 Exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. The copy of letter of intent dated 29.08.2016 CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 11 of 21 Exhibited as Ex.PW1/D. The copy of offer of employment dated 28.06.2015 is Exhibited as Ex.PW1/E. (showing reflecting salary as Rs.22,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only). The copy of letter dated 12.10.2016 written by Aditya Saini is Exhibited as Ex.PW1/F. The copy of emails dated 24.09.2016, dated 22.09.2016, 21.09.2016, 17.09.2016 and dated 15.09.2016 and also two separate emails dated 14.09.2016 are Ex.PW1/G (colly). The copy of offer of employment dated 28.06.2015 Marked as "G". (Showing Reflecting salary Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only). The copy of salary slip @ Rs.17,000/- per month from July till September 2015 Exhibited as Ex.PW1/I (colly). The copy of letter of resignation by defendant dated 12.10.2016 as Ex.PW1/J. The copy of executed employment dated 29.08.2016 Exhibited as Ex.PWI/K (Offering salary of Rs. 18,000/-). The copy of legal notice dated 26.10.2016 issued by the plaintiff Exhibited as Ex.PW1/L (colly). Reply dated 03.11.2016 to the legal notice Exhibited as Ex.PW1/M. The copy of demand notice dated 05.11.2016 is Ex.PW1/N. The copy of the complaint to the SHO dated 16.11.2016 bearing DD NO. 47B is Marked as "O". The copy of complaint dated 05.12.2016 to DCP (South East) Marked as "P". In his examination, PW- 1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint. This witness was cross- examined at length by Ld. counsel for the defendant. Besides this, no other witness was examined by the plaintiff and vide order dated 23.05.2019, PE was closed and matter was adjourned for defendant's evidence.
15. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 who has relied CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 12 of 21 upon the documents Ex. DW1/1 to DW-1/9 i.e. reply of legal notice dated 03.11.2016 as Ex.DW1/1 (colly 5 pages), postal receipt Ex.DW1/2, copy of demand notice dated 04.11.2016 Ex.DW1/3 (colly 3 pages), postal receipt Ex.DW1/4, copy of police complaint against the plaintiff dated 04.11.2016 Ex.DW1/5 (colly, 2 pages), postal receipt Ex.DW1/6 (colly), copy of complaint made before Labour Settlement Officer, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi dated 04.01.2017 Ex.DW1/7 (colly. 4 pages), copy of complaint made before Authorized Officer, Delhi Shops and Establishment Labour Office, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi dated 23.03.2017 Ex.DW1/8 (colly, 5 pages) and copy of complaint made before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi dated 15.11.2016 Ex.DW1/9. In his examination, DW-1 has reiterated the contents of the written statement. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
16. Defendant also examined three more witnesses. DW-2 is Ct. Rahul Sharma from PS Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi who has brought complaint dated 04.11.2016 received through speed post by the defendant and same is registered vide entry No. 1073/P dated 07.11.2016, same is already Ex.DW1/5. The copy of relevant page of register is Ex.DW2/1 (OSR). This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and in his cross-examination, he has deposed that the complaint was marked to SI Sanjeev who has been transferred and currently the complaint is with HC Nityanand. He has further deposed that he had no knowledge about the progress of the investigation of the complaint. He has further deposed that he did not know as to whether Mr. Aditya Saini CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 13 of 21 has lodged any previous complaint against the Go Processing or not.
17. DW-3 is Sh. Jagdish, Junior Assistant from Labour Department who has brought copy of complaint dated 04.01.2017 already Ex.DW1/7 (colly, 4 pages), copy of complaint dated 23.03.2017 already Ex.DW1/8 (colly, 5 pages) and copy of complaint dated 15.11.2016 already Ex.DW1/9. (Original complaints seen and returned). Note sheet of cases are Ex.DW3/A (OSR). This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and in his cross-examination, he has deposed that he knew nothing about this case and has only brought record.
18. DW-4 is Sh. Kunjan Vadvama, Legal Advisor of 7SPAN Technologies. 310, Lilamani Corporate Heights, Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad-380 013, Gujarat who has brought the summoned record i.e letter describing the salary fixed (CTC) of the defendant at the time of his appointment on 01.07.2015 is Ex.DW4/A. Letter of authorization issued by the firm in his favour is Ex.DW4/B. This witness was also cross- examined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and in his cross- examination, he deposed that the authority letter does not bear stamp of the firm. He has further deposed that he could not state as to whether the firm had paid salary in the sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the defendant for the month of July, August and September, 2015. He volunteered that he has been merely asked by the firm to produce certificate of salary issued by the firm before the Court. He has further deposed that there were 3 partners in the firm.
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 14 of 2119. It is also a matter of record that on 12.03.2020, the defendant has moved an application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for summoning the witness which was dismissed and DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
20. It is a matter of record that none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff despite various adjournments and even vide order dated 23.05.2023, a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the plaintiff and matter was adjourned for 19.07.2023. On 19.07.2023, none had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and last and final opportunity was given to the plaintiff to argue the matter, failing which, the matter would be decided on the basis of material available on record. Despite that, none had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the defendant and perused the record.
21. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 22.08.2023, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that he is not pressing the issue nos. 1, 2 & 3 and to this effect, statement of Ld. counsel for the defendant was also recorded.
22. My issue wise findings are as follows:-
Issue nos. 1 to 3 are taken together being interlinked to each other.
1. Whether the plaintiff got executed certain documents from the CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 15 of 21 defendant under undue influence or coercion and its effect? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff misused the details of e-mail ID and password furnished by the defendant and fabricated the letter dated 28.06.2015?
OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff forcibly got executed the letter dated 29.08.2016 (back-dated) showing the salary of Rs. 18,000? OPD
23. The onus qua these issues were placed on the defendant. However, vide today's order dated i.e 22.08.2023, the Ld. counsel for the defendant has submitted that he is not pressing the issue nos. 1, 2 & 3 and his statement was also recorded in this regard. Accordingly, these issues are decided, as not pressed for.
Issues no. 4.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of compensation/damages as claimed for? OPP
24. The onus qua this issue was placed on the plaintiff.
25. The plaintiff has filed the suit for damages amounting Rs. 20,00,000 for the acts of committing cheating, forgery, commission of theft of confidential and restricted data and causing disrepute to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff company. In nutshell, it is the case of the plaintiff that Firstly, cheating and forgery qua Offer of Employment dated 28.06.2015, Secondly, unauthorized absenteeism on false and frivolous ground of medical ailment and Thirdly, the CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 16 of 21 commission of pilferage of confidential and restricted data of the plaintiff company and the defendant tendered apology for his above said malafide and illegal acts, and requested the plaintiff company not to terminate him and sought to sign a fresh Executive Employment Agreement with retrospective effect dated 29.08.2016 for his salary amounting Rs.18,000/- per month.
26. PW-1 Ms. Priya Mittal in her cross-examination has been specifically asked whether she has placed any document on record to prove that her company has suffered loss / damages of Rs. 20,00,000/- to which she replied in affirmative and when she was directed to show the said document, she replied that because of the confidential data transferred in the private gmail ID by the defendant, the company has suffered the loss of Rs.20,00,000/- and has pointed out at the e-mails attached in Ex. PW-1/G (colly). This document was admitted by the defendant in the affidavit dated 04.01.2018 in serial no.9 of the said affidavit. From the above said document, it is nowhere clear that how the plaintiff suffered the loss of Rs.20,00,000/-. Even, a specific question was put to the PW-1 which is as under:-
Q12. Have you placed any document to prove that your important projects were at peak during the month of September 2016? Ans. The same is not available in the judicial file.
27. Hence, it is clear from the record that the plaintiff has not proved a single document on record to show that how the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.20,00,000/-. Plaintiff has relied upon one document CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 17 of 21 i.e Ex. PW-1/F i.e letter dated 12.10.2016. Although, the defendant is claiming that he was pressurized to write the above said letter. For the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the said letter was written by the defendant without any pressure, even then, this document does not say that the defendant has misused the same. By simply saying before the Court that the plaintiff has suffered a loss, it cannot be proved in the absence of any relevant document. The plaintiff has not examined any other witness to depose that defendant has misused any data and it caused loss to the plaintiff.
28. The plaintiff is also claiming that the defendant was found to be absent from 24.09.2016 (2nd half) to 26.09.2016 from the employment of the plaintiff company and remained unauthorizedly absent. The defendant in his cross-examination has specifically deposed that he was absent from 24.09.2016 to 26.09.2016 due to medical reasons and his leaves were sanctioned. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through the cross-examination of PW-1 wherein a specific question was put to the witness to show that whether any service record of the defendant was placed on record to which PW-1 replied that plaintiff company has not placed any service record of the defendant. If the defendant was unauthorized absent for the above said period, the plaintiff company must have maintained a record and the said record should have been placed before this Court to show that the defendant was unauthorizedly absent. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant was unauthorized absent.
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 18 of 2129. The plaintiff is also claiming that defendant also played a fraud upon the plaintiff company by fabrication of his offer of his employment dated 28.06.2015 by defendant's previous employer i.e 7SPAN TECHNOLOGIES, #408, Sidd HR Manager at Zori, Nr. Atrial Business Mall, Sargasan Circle, Gandhinagar-382421, Gujarat, India at a handsome salary for an amount of Rs.22,000. Besides making bald allegations, the plaintiff has not proved that how defendant had played fraud or fabricated, the above said letter. On the other hand, the defendant has examined one witness Sh. Kunjan Vadvama (DW-4), Legal Advisor of 7SPAN Technologies. 310, Lilamani Corporate Heights, Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad-380 013, Gujarat who has brought the summoned record i.e letter describing the salary fixed (CTC) of the defendant at the time of his appointment on 01.07.2015 is Ex.DW4/A. Letter of authorization issued by the firm in his favour is Ex.DW4/B.
30. Hence, on all counts, the plaintiff has failed to prove its case. The civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Preponderance means the evidence that persuades a judge to lean to one side as opposed to the other, during the course of litigation. In Lowery Vs. Albama Power Co. 483 F 3D 1184 (2007) Justice Gerald TJO flat of the United States Court of appeals wrote :-
"Preponderance of the evidence (means) the greater weight of the evidence, superior evidenciary weight; that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 19 of 21 side of the issue rather than the other."
31. The plaintiff bears the burden to prove his claim by preponderance of the evidence. When a party has a burden of proof it means they must be able to persuade by the evidence that the claim is more probably true then not. The evidence on one side is perceived outweighing the other, if the evidence on one side is more persuasive and impressive than the evidence of other side. The concept of 'preponderance' of the evidence can be visualized as a scale representing the burden of proof, with the totality of evidence presented by each side resting on the respective trays on either side of the scale. If the scale tips ever so slightly on one side or the other, the weightier side will prevail. If the scale does not tip towards the side of the party bearing the burden of proof, party cannot prevail.
32. Coming to the present case, the evidence led by the plaintiff is not able to persuade that his claim is more probably true and is outweighing the contentions of the defendant. The contentions of the defendant prevails over that of the plaintiff.
33. Hence, in view of the facts stated above, this issues is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Relief
34. In view of the findings on issue no.1, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 20 of 2135. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the Open Court today i.e 22nd August, 2023.
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
WASON
WASON Date: 2023.08.22
14:08:09 +0530
(Deepak Wason)
ADJ-05 : South-East District:
Saket Courts: New Delhi
CS no. 11950/16 M/s. Go Processing Ltd. Vs. Aditya Saini Page 21 of 21