SEBASTIAN THOMAS vs VINCULUM SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on:15th January, 2024
Pronounced on:19th January, 2024

+ I.P.A. 11/2019 & I.A. 14022/2019
SEBASTIAN THOMAS ….. Plaintiffs
Through: Ms.Ankita Patnaik, Advocate for DHCLSC.

versus

M/S VINCULUM SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS ….Defendant
Through: Mr.Ashutosh Kumar and Mr.Swarnil
Dey, Advocates for D1 and D2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
I.A.12727/2019 (under Order XXXIII Rule 2 & 3 on behalf of the plaintiff for exemption of Court Fees)

1. The plaintiff has filed a suit with the following reliefs:
“(i) Declare that Defendant No 1 has illegally and unlawfully terminated the contract/ services of the Plaintiff.
(ii) Pass a decree for Mandatory Injunctions against the Defendants, directing the Defendant No 1 & 2 to pay damages and compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000,00,00 to the Plaintiff.
(iii) Direct Defendant No 3 to pay damages and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000,00,00 to the Plaintiff.
(iv) Pass a judgement asking the Defendant No 1 & 2 to either strictly follow ethical business practices or to completely close all their business in India and overseas as anyone who does not find it necessary to pay workers their wage and follow ethical business practices is not eligible to nin such a business.
(v) Pass a judgement so as to end modern slavery rampant in the corporate world even in this democratic era so that all those who are suffering it silently for survival can without fear raise their voice against it.
(vi) Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants.
(vii) Award costs including Rent, Travel Expenses and Daily expenses incurred by the Plaintiff who is a native of Kerala for travelling and staying in Delhi during the duration of the case in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No 1.
(viii) Pass such other and further orders(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Along with the suit an application I.A.12727/2019 has been annexed under Order XXXIII Rule 2 and 3 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) submitting that the plaintiff does not have sufficient income to pay the Court Fee which is calculated at Rs.11,82,264.00. The Income Certificate issued by the concerned SDM is annexed herewith. It was further submitted that the plaintiff is now jobless and suffers from serious financial incapacity and, therefore, appropriate orders may be made to exempt the plaintiff from paying the Court Fee.
3. The application is contested by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who, in the formal Reply, have asserted that the plaintiff was the former Contract employee of defendant No.1 as per appointment letter dated 27.08.2018 and he had remained under the contractual employment for a brief period of about four months. However, because of his professional misconduct, the services of the plaintiff were terminated vide Letter dated 15.01.2019 and all his dues were admittedly given to him.
4. It is asserted that the plaintiff, soon after the termination, resorted to sending defamatory emails to the clients of the defendant including M/s A S Watson in order to exert undue pressure and blackmail the defendants. It is submitted that the defendant had filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.326/2019 against the plaintiff titled M/s Vinculum Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sebastian Thomas, in which an interim injunction order restraining the plaintiff from communicating with defendants’ clients was passed by the Court on the date of first hearing and the suit was finally decreed in favour of the defendants herein on 23.10.2019. However, the plaintiff disobeyed the judgment/decree dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Court and thus, a Contempt Petition namely, CONT. CAS (C) No.1066/2019 has also been filed against the plaintiff.
5. On merits, it is asserted that the plaintiff has placed reliance on the Income Certificate issued by the SDM, but that cannot be the sole basis to conclusively conclude that the plaintiff is unable to pay for the present litigation.
6. It is asserted that the plaintiff is an IT Professional who was drawing a salary of about Rs 3,50,000/- per month till his termination in January, 2019 after which he allegedly did not take up another job. It is submitted that being a professional with 12 years of experience drawing a hefty salary, the plaintiff cannot be held to be an indigent person.
7. Further, the plaintiff while claiming that all the income has been utilized he has not given particulars of such expenditure and has only resorted to bald claims that the amount has been utilized. No documentary proof has been provided to substantiate the claims.
8. Furthermore, the plaintiff has sought compensation and damages based on unfounded claims having no legal and factual standing. The plaintiff has indulged in an act of inflating the damages and thereby claiming indigence to seek exemption from paying the Court Fee which cannot be allowed. The application is, therefore, sought to be dismissed.
9. The plaintiff in the Rejoinder to the Reply, denied the assertions made by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and specifically stated that he was not paid his salary on time. He asserted that he was a diligent worker and it was the defendant No.1 who took a lackadaisical approach towards paying him salary. He further described that his salary has been used by him in construction of his house and maintaining his wife and child and he reiterated that he is an indigent person.
10. Submissions heard.
11. Order XXXIII Rule 2 of CPC, provides that a person who is suing as an indigent person is required to submit the application which shall contain all the particulars in regard to the plaint as in suits, a schedule of movable and immovable properties belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for signing and verification of the pleadings. Rule 3 provides that on presentation of such application, the applicant may be examined by the Court. Rule 4 further provides that when the application is in proper form and duly presented, the Court may examine the applicant or his agent, as the case may be.
12. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed a proper suit claiming the reliefs as mentioned above, but has also annexed the present I.A.No.12727/2019 seeking exemption from filing the requisite Court Fee. Though, the contents of the application should have been mentioned in the main suit itself, but considering that the present proceedings have been registered as an IPA, even though it is not in proper form, at this stage this Court does not deem it proper to return the petition to be preferred in the proper form. However, as per the procedure described in Rule 4 of Order XXXIII the petitioner needs to be examined by the Court.
13. The matter be listed before the Joint Registrar on 26.02.2024 for recording of the statement of the applicant in respect of his indigence and his assets/properties as disclosed by him in the Annexure along with the present application, in order to determine his indigence.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

JANUARY 19, 2024
Va/nk

I.P.A. 11/2019 Page 5 of 5