Dismissed

Sandeep Singh Bhardwaj v. Tower Capital and Securities Pvt. Ltd. Nd Anr.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2014APP/419/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal was filed against the dismissal of a notice of motion seeking attachment of assets before judgment in a suit for employment dues. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to place material showing dues were certainly payable and adopted an unreasonable approach by claiming amounts prior to a period settled in full and final. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the Mediation Center, High Court, Bombay.

Sandeep Singh Bhardwaj Vs Tower Capital and Securities… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

appl-204-14.format

¶2

Abs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL (L) NO.204 OF 2014 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2454 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO.2478 OF 2012

¶6

Sandeep Singh Bharadwaj .. Appellant V/s. Tower Capital & Securities Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents.

¶7

Mr. G.S. Hegde with Ms. P.M. Bhansali i/b G.S. Hegde & Associates for the appellant.

¶8

Dr. Birendra Saraf with Mr. Arupdas Gupta i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 6 AUGUST 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12 February 2014, by which the learned Trial Judge of this Court dismissed the appellant-plaintiff's notice of motion seeking inter alia attachment before judgment, of the assets and properties of respondent No.1 company under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.).

1 of 4

appl-204-14.format

Abs

2] The plaintiff, as an ex-employee of respondent No.1 company, has instituted a suit to recover various dues towards unpaid salary, bonus, share of profits etc. from respondent No.1 company. The plaintiff contends that the company is in the process of closing down its business and in all probabilities, the plaintiff would be deprived of the fruits of the decree which is likely to be passed in the suit.

¶16

3] The notice of motion was opposed by the company, inter alia, by pointing out that in March 2010, the company paid the plaintiff an amount of Rs.60 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the dues upto 31 March 2010. This position was confirmed by the plaintiff in his e-mail dated 16 March 2010.

¶17

4] At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the company placed on record the statement indicating that an amount of Rs.4,51,43,814/- was paid by the company to the plaintiff towards commission (inclusive of tax deducted at source). Further, an amount of Rs.1,12,83,624/- was also paid by the company to the plaintiff towards salary for the period between 1 November 2007 to 31 March 2010.

¶18

5] Learned counsel for the company pointed out that in November 2010, at the request of the plaintiff, the company advanced to the plaintiff housing loan of Rs.21 lakhs and it was understood between the parties that part of salary and

2 of 4

appl-204-14.format

Abs

commission payable to the plaintiff would be adjusted against such loan amount from time to time.

¶23

6] From the aforesaid, we satisfied that the plaintiff has not placed any material on record from which it could be said, at this stage itself, that the amounts claimed by him are certainly due and payable by the company. Further, since the plaintiff claims an equitable relief, it is necessary to note that in the statement of claim annexed to the plaint, the plaintiff has included several claims for the period prior to 31 March 2010, though he has offered deduction of Rs.60 lakhs. This cannot be said to be a fair approach, as after acceptance of Rs.60 lakhs in full and final settlement of all his claims upto 31 March 2010, there was no question of raising any claims for the period prior thereto. Upon such claims, the plaintiff has claimed for interest as well.

¶24

7] The learned Trial Judge has given cogent reasons both, upon the prima-faice entitlement of the plaintiff and the necessity to order attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶25

8] Taking into consideration the unreasonable approach of the plaintiff, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this appeal with costs quantified at Rs.1 lakh.

3 of 4

appl-204-14.format

Abs

9] Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned counsel for the company states that the costs may be paid to the Main Mediation Center, High Court, Bombay. Accordingly, the appellant-plaintiff to pay the costs to the said Mediation Center within a period of one month from today and report compliance.

¶30

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶32

4 of 4

Sandeep Singh Bhardwaj v. Tower Capital and Securities Pvt. Ltd. Nd Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh Bhardwaj v. Tower Capital and Securities Pvt. Ltd. Nd Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrc Logistics India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd.

Vinod Prakash Goel and Another Vs M/S. K and M Sheltors Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Pradeep Prahlad Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radhakrishnan Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radhakrishnan Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.