Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
55729/2025 GAURAV RAJGARIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Devashish Chauhan, Ms. Madhura M.N. and Ms. Ansh Gulati, Advs.
Through: Mr, Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Siddharth Nath, Mr. Aajad Hussain and Mr. Anunay Chowdhury Advs. for
R-1 Mr. Satyajit Sarna, Mr. Sudev Singh Juneja, Mr. Aman Goyal and Mr. Debarchan De, Advs. for R-2 to R-5
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of a judgment dated 02.07.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the plaint filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] was rejected by learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’].
2. A plain reading of the Impugned Judgment shows that the plaint has been rejected on the ground that specific performance of employment contract is not permissible as per Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SRA’], and the services of the Appellant have been terminated/dispensed with, in accordance with the terms of the employment contract.
3. In order to comprehend the controversy involved in the present case, the relevant paragraphs of the plaint are extracted below:
38. It is pertinent to mention here that the allegations of involvement of the Plaintiff in improper dealings with the suppliers of the Defendant No. l, using dubious means and methods for getting benefits via other employees, accepting huge sums of money from the suppliers of the Defendant No.1 and having numerous properties under his family's name and transferred under various relative's name were not only wrong, vague and baseless, but the same were alleged to harass and remove the Plaintiff from his service. The ulterior motive for doing so was ego and grudges of Ms. Geetika Rana and that of her father Mr. S.R. Rana, who has used their influence over officials of the Defendant No. 1 to falsely implicate the Plaintiff.
40. As already submitted herein-above, that the members of the Complaints Committee conducting the inquiry were in collusion with Ms. Geetika Rana and her father Mr. S.R. Rana and have acted in unison to terminate the services of the Plaintiff by flaunting all norms of rules and procedures. The Complaints Committee has neither concluded its proceedings nor given its findings to the Plaintiff, thus, it is proved that the entire inquiry was a sham and stood vitiated for reasons stated hereinabove.
42. However, the Defendant No. l had arbitrarily terminated services of the Plaintiff vide the termination letter dated 13.02.2023 without attributing any cogent reasons or findings qua the allegations. Though the proceedings undertaken by the Complaints Committee does not find any mention in the said letter, the Defendant No. 5 at the instance of the Defendant No.1 has illegally and arbitrarily issued the termination letter dated 13.02.2023 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was discharging his duties as Deputy General Manager, Supply Chain- IPR[4] department, before he was maliciously, illegally and unceremoniously terminated from his services on 13.02.2023.
44. Admittedly, the Defendants have terminated the services of the Plaintiff while exercising discretionary powers without citing any reasons for issuance of the termination letter dated 13.02.2023. Clause 18 of contract of employment dated 06.02.2006 (Appointment Letter), does not give arbitrary power to the employer to terminate services of a regular employee. It was imperative for the Defendants to give reasons before issuance of the termination letter dated 13.02.2023, in absence whereof, it is nullity. Clause 18 of contract of employment dated 06.02.2006 (Appointment Letter) reads as under: “18. After successful completion of training period and absorption as a regular employee thereafter, services may be terminated by giving three months' notice by either party or Pay plus Dearness Allowance in lieu of such notice or in case of shorter notice. Pay plus Dearness Allowance for the period falling short of such three months' notice but subject always to the conditions of the Agreement executed by you/your surety.”
47. The service of Plaintiff has been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Defendants. The Plaintiff is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination by the Defendants.
48. Consequently, the Plaintiff has got a legal notice upon the Defendants calling upon them to revoke and withdraw the termination letter dated 13.02.2023 being illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by fraud. The Defendants were directed to reinstate the Plaintiff at the same post of the Defendant No. 1 from which he has been terminated with consequential benefits through his Counsel. The Plaintiff through the said legal notice has raised a lawful demand of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores One Hundred Only) as damages for causing mental as well as physical agony, harassment, undue hardships and for causing loss of job, opportunity and income to the Plaintiff till the time of filing the petition and same may be extended based on the time of conclusion and interest applicable.
PRAYER In the facts and circumstances transcribed hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Pass a decree declaring the termination letter dated 13.02.2023 issued by the Defendant No. 5 to the Plaintiff, thereby terminating him from the services of the Defendant No. 1 as null and void; ii. Pass a decree of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Only) in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for loss of income and on account of continuous harassment, undue hardships victimization committed at the hands of the Defendants; iii. Pass a decree directing the Defendant No. 1 to reinstate the Plaintiff in service with continuity and full back wages along with all consequential benefits; iv. Award the cost of suit and such other costs as this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper;”
4. A perusal of the record reflects that the Appellant was working as Department Manager in Supply Chain/IPR[4] division (DPM, SC- IPR[4]), with the Respondent No.1 [Defendant No.1 before the learned Single Judge]. However, on 13.02.2023, vide a letter addressed to him by the Respondents, the Appellant was informed that his services had been terminated. While filing the suit, the Appellant prayed for various reliefs, as extracted above under paragraph no.3. In addition to the aforestated, it is also the case of the Appellant that his services have been arbitrarily terminated by the Respondent No.1., alleging that such termination was arbitrary and mala fide on the part of Ms. Geetika Rana and Mr. S.R. Rana, who are said to wield great influence over the senior officials/management of the Respondent No.1. The Appellant has also sought a decree of Rs.[2] crores against the Respondents on account of loss of income, continuous harassment, undue hardship and victimisation inflicted by the Respondents. Furthermore, the Appellant paid a lump sum court fee of Rs.1.99 lakhs upon filing the suit.
5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, perused the paperbook and the record of the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, partial rejection of the plaint is not permissible and, in any case, the suit qua the Appellant’s claim for recovery of Rs.[2] crores was maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the plaint while relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in S.S. Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd[1], which did not arise from a decision of the Court passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that once the contract of service is terminated/dispensed with, the employee is estopped from filing a suit and, consequently, cannot claim damages. Learned senior counsel further submits that prayer (ii) of the plaint is dependent on the prayer (i) of the plaint. Hence, the suit would not be maintainable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of S.S. Shetty (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Ors. vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Ors.2.
8. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the relevant documents and judgements thereof, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the plaint. Particularly, in view of the prayer (ii) of the plaint, wherein the Appellant while asserting that his services has been wrongly and arbitrarily terminated, has also alleged mala fides and arbitral exercise of powers by the Respondents. The plaint further highlights that the Appellant was not afforded a fair opportunity before the Complaint Committee on 02.02.2023, pursuant to the chargesheet dated 01.02.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 for alleged violations of Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (COBCE) and other internal policies.
9. Additionally, in paragraph no.25 of the plaint, the Appellant while referring to the two enquiries dated 22.12.2022 and 16.01.2023, has claimed that he was arbitrarily removed from his workstation by certain Vigilance and HR Officials in the presence of his colleagues 2025 INSC 485 and other staff, resulting in significant harm to his reputation and image.
10. A perusal of the plaint in its entirety clearly discloses a cause of action, including serious claims of procedural impropriety and harm to the reputation and image of the Appellant. Therefore, the rejection of the plaint is not justifiable, and the suit is maintainable, with respect to the claim of the Appellant to recover Rs.[2] crores for loss of income, continuous harassment, undue hardship and victimisation committed at the hands of the Respondents. Moreover, it is trite law that rejection of a part of the plaint, in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is not permissible.
11. As far as the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties is concerned, the same are distinguished hereinafter.
12. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court in S.S. Shetty (supra) is in the context of a decision rendered by the Industrial Tribunal and did not arise from a case decided under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, the judgment passed by the Supreme Court is distinguishable.
13. In Nikhila Divyang Mehta (supra), the Supreme Court examined a plaint wherein the plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration to the effect that the Will and Codicil executed by their father was null and void. Additionally, the plaintiffs also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction. In that context, the Supreme Court held that the remaining reliefs were dependent upon the first relief, which could only be granted if the plaintiffs succeeded in the first relief and that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, this judgment is also distinguishable.
14. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the case at hand, has placed reliance on Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v Manorma Sirsi[3]. In the aforesaid judgement, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving an alleged illegal and void transfer of the plaintiff. Importantly, the Court noted that no written contract existed between the parties specifying any terms related to the transfer. While determining whether the suit was triable or not, the Supreme Court held that a plaint dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or maintainability cannot proceed to trial. Hence, the same is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
15. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Appeal is allowed, and the Impugned Judgment is hereby set aside. The suit filed by the Appellant is restored to its original number.
16. The parties, along with their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025.
17. The present Appeal, along with pending applications, stand disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2025/jn/hr