BHARAT KUMAR CHAUDHARY vs NAVIN MALHOTRA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 22.08.2024
Pronounced on: 15.10.2024

+ CS(OS) 28/2015
BHARAT KUMAR CHAUDHARY …..Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Raj Kumar Mishra, Adv.

versus

NAVIN MALHOTRA …..Defendant
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
J U D G M E N T
1. The present Suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for Decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.03.50 crores along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Herein, it is relevant to note that when the Suit was filed, only defendant no.1 was impleaded as defendant, later, the plaintiff moved an application, being I.A. 4584/2019, to implead defendant no.2. The said application was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 22.05.2023, impleading defendant no.2, however, the plaintiff did not move any application seeking corresponding amendment to the plaint.

Case of the Plaintiff
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and worked under the Chairmanship of the defendant’s company/organization/Star Bazar from 2006 to 2013, which was situated at Kailash Colony, New Delhi. During the course of such employment, the defendant took and kept signed dated and undated documents and cheques by the plaintiff in good faith.
3. The plaintiff further asserts that the aforesaid company/organization/Star Bazar was closed in the year 2013, whereafter, he left the job and started his own business.
4. The plaintiff asserts that after one year, the defendant started blackmailing, threatening and tried to mentally torture the plaintiff and his family members on the basis of the documents and cheques which were in the possession of the defendant. Due to such blackmail and threat from the defendant, the plaintiff and his family members were afraid and ready to compromise as the plaintiff did not want to create any litigation and wanted to concentrate on his future, and on his infant children and old age parents. The plaintiff asserts that, thereafter, several rounds of meetings were held between the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of their respective family members, and finally, the parties settled the disputes and reduced the terms thereof in writing as an Agreement dated 20.05.2014. (Ex.P-1/3). The plaintiff asserts that the defendant received Rs.50 lakhs from the plaintiff and made a receipt and signed the same (Ex.P-1/4)(OSR).
5. The plaintiff asserts that, thereafter, the defendant again started blackmailing, threatening and demanding Rs.03 crores from the plaintiff. Due to fear and mental torture and threats of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to a compromise and an Agreement dated 14.06.20214 was prepared in the presence of the witnesses and respective family members of the defendant and the plaintiff, and both the parties and the witnesses signed the said Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1).
6. It is further asserted that in terms of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1), the defendant received Rs.70 lakhs in cash as a first instalment from the plaintiff, thereafter, as a second instalment Rs.80 lakhs was given in cash to the defendant on 02.07.2014 and Rs.1.50 crores, again in cash, was given on 15.09.2014.
7. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has executed written and signed documents in his own handwriting in the presence of witnesses for receipt of the said amount. Pertinently, these receipts are not filed on record of the Suit. However, it is equally pertinent to note herein that the last page of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 contains a hand written receiving of the aforesaid cash instalments by the defendant.
8. The plaintiff further asserts that to make the above payment, the plaintiff had taken a loan from his nearest and dearest relatives and had even sold his house due to fear and to avoid litigation. Again documents of the alleged loan or for the sale of the property have not been filed in the present Suit.
9. The plaintiff asserts that in terms of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1), it had been decided that the plaintiff and the defendant shall never initiate any case under any circumstances. The defendant had undertaken, represented, assured, and confirmed that after receiving the amount of Rs.03 crores, under any circumstances, the defendant shall never initiate any case of any nature against the plaintiff. It was further undertaken, represented, assured, and confirmed that if the defendant initiates any criminal or civil action against the plaintiff, he shall return back the amount of Rs.03 crores to the plaintiff, as mentioned in the Agreement dated 14.06.2014.
10. The plaintiff asserts that on 20.10.2014, a complaint against the plaintiff bearing DD No.48-B was filed by the defendant in Mehrauli Police Station regarding a matter and the police personnel informed the plaintiff of the complaint.
11. On 28.10.2014, the plaintiff served a legal notice (Ex.P-1/2) on the defendant, however, the defendant remained silent. The plaintiff asserts that, thereafter, he filed an application seeking anticipatory bail bearing no.6540/2014 titled as ‘State v. Bharat Choudhary’ before the Saket Courts, New Delhi.
12. The plaintiff asserts that the police personnel of the Mehrauli P.S. filed its reply dated 01.11.2014 to the said bail application of the plaintiff (Ex.P-1/5). By an Order dated 01.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South District, Saket, it was directed that the plaintiff shall be served three working days’ notice in the event of registration of an FIR, and with this direction the application was disposed of.
13. The plaintiff asserts that from the above it is clear that the defendant has deliberately violated the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1) and is liable to return back Rs.03.50 crores to him as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1).
14. The plaintiff asserts that he is also entitled to payment of compensation due to prolonged mental agony, torture, and harassment caused to him by the defendant, and the plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the litigation.
15. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant having a dishonest intention blackmailed and took a huge amount of Rs.03.50 crores from the plaintiff. The defendant from the very beginning had knowingly and intentionally taken and kept signed documents from the plaintiff, which were dated and undated, as also cheques, which were in his possession, because of which, the plaintiff has been suffering economic loss, mental agony, and physical torture.

Proceedings in the Suit
16. Summons in the Suit were issued to defendant no.1 (at that time, the only defendant) vide Order dated 06.01.2015. As the defendant remained un-served, fresh summons were issued to the defendant no.1 vide Order dated 24.02.2015 and 26.08.2015. In the Order dated 20.01.2016, it was recorded that the defendant could not be served as the summons had been received back with a remark that the defendant was not residing at the given address. The plaintiff, on the said date, sought time to move an appropriate application for making substituted service on the defendant.
17. On the plaintiff moving such an application, being I.A. 2124/2016, vide Order dated 12.02.2016, the defendant was directed to be served by way of publication.
18. In the Order dated 18.04.2016, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) recorded that the defendant, that is, defendant no.1 has been served by way of the publication, however, summons have not been served on the defendant by way of affixation. The plaintiff was, therefore, directed to take steps in this regard.
19. On 05.08.2016, a counsel appeared for the defendant, that is, defendant no.1, and was directed to file his memo of appearance. Defendant no.1 was also directed to file his written statement as per the law.
20. On 02.11.2016, it was recorded that the vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no.1 had not been filed nor was the written statement filed by defendant no.1. Hence, the right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed.
21. By an Order dated 16.12.2016, the plaintiff was allowed the opportunity to lead evidence.
22. The evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.04.2017. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), he reiterated the contents of the plaint. There was no cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant.
23. By an Order dated 04.09.2017, in the course of final arguments, the plaintiff was directed to place on record the current status of the criminal complaint bearing DD No. 48B dated 20.10.2014 lodged with Police Station Mehrauli. The plaintiff filed an affidavit dated 12.12.2017, annexing therewith a letter dated 29.11.2017, from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Economic Offence Wing, PS Mandir Marg Complex, New Delhi. The said letter reads as under:-
“With reference to your letter dt. 10/10/2017 it is informed that a complaint bearing DD No. 48A, Dt. 20/10/2014, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi, reg. cheating and forgery was received from PS Meharauli. Complainant is Mr. Naveen Malhotra. In the present reference complainant has alleged that Bharat Kumar Chaudhary was working as an accountant in the Co. of the complainant. Bharat Kumar Chaudhary forged its signatures/seal of his companies on his cheque books and caused him huge financial loss (Rs.7 Cr. Approx.) with the collusion of his father Sh. Udai Chand and one Ms.Sonia, working in the same office/store.
On the above complaint of Mr.Naveen Malhotra a case FIR No. 37/15, Dt. 16/03/2015, u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC, PS EOW has been registered and is under investigation.”

24. By an Order dated 25.04.2018, this Court had directed the EOW to file a status report with respect to the investigation in FIR No. 37/2015 referred to in the above letter. The Status Report dated 07.09.2018 was filed by the Cyber Crime Cell in compliance with the Order dated 25.04.2018. In the report, it was mentioned as under:-
“3. It is submitted that a complaint alleging cheating and forgery was received from PS Meharauli on 24.12.2014 in the Cyber Crime Cell, EOW, PS Mandir Marg Complex, New Delhi. The complainant was Mr. Naveen Malhotra. In the complaint, it has been alleged that Bharat Kumar (the Plaintiff herein) was working as an accountant in the company of the complainant, namely. Star Bazar Pvt. Ltd and other Star Group companies. He was entrusted with the department of accounts of the said companies. He was also entrusted with the handling of heavy amount of cash on daily basis for the purpose of the accounting and depositing the same in various bank accounts of the companies. He was also entrusted with cheque books, financial records and other financial data pertaining to the complainant’s companies. The said accused allegedly forged the complainant’s signatures/seal of his companies on his cheque books and caused the complainant huge financial loss (to the tune of Rs. 7 Crore Approximately) with the collusion of his father Sh. Udai Chand and one Ms. Sonia, working in the same office/store.
4. The complaint was transferred to EOW from PS Meharauli and present case bearing FIR No. 37/2015 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPG Police Station EOW was registered. During the investigation said Mr. Bharat Kr. Chaudhary was called upon to join the investigation. His specimen of handwriting was taken upon receiving his consent and the same was sent to FSL seeking expert opinion in respect of the allegation of forged signature on the cheques.
5. The complaint was also called upon to provide his specimen of handwriting/signature for expert opinion, but he had till date failed to provide the same in spite of repeated notices, calls and reminder.
6. As the complainant did not give his specimen signature, his admitted signature was obtained from the bank and the said signature along with specimen given by the accused as well as the cheque in question were referred to FSL, Rohini, New Delhi on 10/04/2017 vide File No. FSL-2017/DOC- 2601 for the expert opinion. Opinion from FSL, Rohini, Delhi has been received on 07/09/2018. Further investigation is being done.”

25. Pertinently, the opinion of the FSL mentioned in the above report was neither summoned by the plaintiff in the Suit nor filed. However, even before the above report was filed, an application was filed by defendant no.1 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), being I.A. 11313/2018. In the application, the defendant no.1 asserted that he had never engaged the counsel who had appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 05.08.2016. He stated that he was not aware of the pendency of the Suit.
26. This Court, by its Order dated 14.09.2018 observed that prima facie, the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1) appears to be opposed to public policy, and also while observing that the plaintiff being a former employee of the defendant, it is not possible to believe that the plaintiff did not know the correct address or mobile number of the defendant, allowed the aforementioned application of defendant and permitted him to file the written statement.
27. Defendant no.1 filed his written statement stating therein that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant no.2 (who had not been impleaded till then) and had done financial bungling. He had voluntarily agreed to pay a sum of Rs.03 crores as is mentioned in the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1), entered between the plaintiff and the defendant, however, later it was found that the bungling was of around Rs.10 crores, therefore, the defendant filed a police complaint vide DD no. 48B dated 20.10.2014 with Police Station Mehrauli and FIR No.37/2015 was registered with Police Station EOW Cell, which is pending investigation. The defendant claimed that the present Suit has been filed by the plaintiff only to pressurize the defendant to not to pursue the FIR. Pertinently, the defendant admitted that he had received in the account of defendant no.2 Rs.70 lakhs on 14.06.2014, Rs.80 lakhs on 02.06.2014 and Rs.1.50 crores on or about 15.09.2014. He stated that these amounts are reflected in the income tax record of defendant no.2. He further stated that the Agreement dated 20.05.2014 was not signed by him as the amount due was much more. Later, the plaintiff himself had agreed to pay Rs.3 crores whereafter the Settlement Agreement dated 14.06.2014 had been signed by defendant no.1.
28. The plaintiff filed his replication stating that the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1) was only between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 as by that time defendant no.1 had closed its functioning. He denied any siphoning of the funds and reiterated that he had given an amount of Rs.03.50 crores to the defendant no.1 due to blackmail, threat and mental torture of the plaintiff and his family members.
29. The plaintiff also filed an application, being I.A. 4584/2019, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC for impleadment of defendant no.2, that is, M/s Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd.
30. The counsel for the defendant then filed an application, being I.A. 5720/2019, seeking his discharge from appearing for the defendant in the Suit. Notice on the said application was issued to the plaintiff and the defendant on 22.04.2019. On 12.07.2019, the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant submitted before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) that the defendant was not traceable. The defendant was, therefore, directed to be served on the said application through publication.
31. In the Order dated 02.09.2019, it is recorded that the defendant has been duly served by way of a publication and, therefore, his counsel was discharged and the application filed by the counsel for the defendant was allowed.
32. Defendant no. 1 was then again proceeded ex parte vide Order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial). By the said Order, a predecessor Bench of this Court also directed that the evidence of the plaintiff already stands recorded and, therefore, the plaintiff was directed to file written arguments.
33. Thereafter, unfortunately, due to the restricted functioning of the Court due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the Suit was not listed for almost a period of two years.
34. Subsequently, vide an Order dated 18.07.2022, notice on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, being I.A. 4584/2019, was directed to be issued to the proposed defendant. The said notice was received back with a remark that the defendant has sold the property. Therefore, fresh notice was directed to be issued on the fresh address, if any, filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then moved an application, being I.A. 21321/2022, praying for the proposed defendant no.2 to be served through publication. The said application was allowed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) vide Order dated 15.12.2022.
35. In the Order dated 10.04.2023, passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), it is recorded that the proposed defendant has been served through publication, however, none was appearing for the proposed defendant. The application seeking impleadment of defendant no.2 was allowed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) vide Order dated 22.05.2023. Fresh summons was thereafter directed to be issued to defendant no.2 by the same Order. The same were received back to be un-served. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, filed an affidavit of service of his clerk stating that the copies of the summons were affixed at the outer door of the premises of the defendant no.2. The learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) taking this to be an effective service, placed the Suit before the Court for further proceedings.
36. A predecessor Bench of this Court, vide Order dated 16.02.2024, directed the matter to be placed for final hearing. By a subsequent Order dated 23.04.2024, the original of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1), which was claimed to have been filed by the plaintiff, was directed to be traced, as it was not in the Court file. Thereafter, the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff were heard by this Court on 05.08.2024 and 22.08.2024.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff
37. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his submission. He submits that as per the terms and conditions of the Contract dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.PW1/1), if in case the defendant initiated any action against the plaintiff even after the receipt of the amount of Rs.03 crores from him, he shall return the said amount to the plaintiff.
38. He submits that it is an admitted case that the defendant had, in fact, filed a criminal case against the plaintiff. He submits that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the claim damages for the mental agony suffered by him. He submits that in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the amount in terms of the Agreement. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MTNL v. Tata Communications Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 341.

Analysis and findings
39. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
40. As the entire claim of the plaintiff is based on the Deed of Compromise dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.P-1/1), executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, some of the terms which are relevant to the present Suit are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“NOW, THEREFORE, THE FIRST PARTY AND SECOND PARTY HAVE CAUSED THIS COMPROMISE DEED TO BE EXECUTED ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:-
xxxxx
2. That, pursuant to the mutual settlement of all disputes between the first and second party herein in respect of and in relation to the financial difference, and pursuant to the mutual settlement between the parties herein, and in consideration for putting an end to such financial differences of First Party towards the Second Party in total, and subject to all other terms and conditions herein contained, the First Party Mr. Bharat Kumar Choudhary shall pay Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) in cash in the following three instalments to the Second Party for the total compromise of the financial differences with the First Party and for not initiation of any kind of criminal/civil suits qua the First Party in consonance with the terms and conditions of this Compromise Deed.
INSTALLMENTS TO BE PAID BY THE FIRST PARTY TO THE SECOND PARTY
a. On 14th June 2014 on amount of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs Only) in cash being the first instalments to be paid to the Second Party
b. On 7th July 2014 on amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs only) in cash being the second instalments to be paid to the Second Party
c. Remaining balance of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lacs Only) in cash being the third and final instalments to be paid to the Second Party by 15th September 2014.
3. That on failure to clear the instalments so stated above in time period by the First Party the second party shall deemed to be the owner of the built up property no. B-4 PHASE II CHATTERPUR ENCLAVE NEW DELHI of the First Party and the First Party shall have no claims to claim the same in any court of law.
4. That, the Second Party hereby undertakes, holds, represents, assures and confirms that after the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only) the Second Party under any circumstance, shall not and shall never initiate any cases of any nature against the First Party or on failure to do so the Second Party shall forthwith return the aforesaid Rs.3 Crores to the First Party.
5. That, the Second Party hereby voluntarily and whole heartedly approves confirms, ratifies and affirms the compromise deed and consequent upon aforesaid, the Second Party shall return the cheque no.190247 dated 27/2/2014 drawn on Andhra Bank Greater Kailash-I branch New Delhi by the First Party Mr.Bharat Kumar Choudhary for an amount of Rs.2.25 Crores after receiving of complete remuneration so aforesaid in the compromise deed to the First Party. It is further agreed that the Second Party is in possession of signed dated and undated documents by the First Party during the course of his employment with the Second Party and the Second Party agreed to destroy all such documents and it is agreed and decided that pursuant to signing and receiving of complete amount so stated above the Second Party or his legal heirs or any representative have no authority to use such documents for initiation of kind of cases qua the first party. Further the second party have no right to dispute, challenge and contest the absolute ownership, rights, title, interests and entitlements of the First Party in and over and in respect of his properties and/or its subsequent ale to any other person, firm or company and so also, the Second Party shall cease to have any right, interest, share, title, entitlement to claim or demand any right of possession of any part of the his property.”

41. The case of the plaintiff simply put is that in terms of Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.P-1/1), defendant no.1 had undertaken that on receipt of the amount of Rs.03 crores from the plaintiff, he shall not initiate any case of any nature against the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 had further undertaken that in case he does so, he shall forthwith return the amount of Rs.03 crores to the plaintiff.
42. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.P-1/1) is only between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is not a party to the said agreement. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the defendant no.2 under the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.P-1/1).
43. Though the defendant has remained ex parte, defendant no.1 had filed a written statement, in which, he admitted the said Agreement. He also admitted that he had received an amount of Rs.03 crores from the plaintiff as stipulated in the Agreement. He also admitted that he had filed a complaint with the police based whereon FIR No. 37/2015 has been registered at the EOW wing and is under investigation. Defendant no.1 has, therefore, clearly acted in breach of the Contract.
44. Though defendant no.1, in the written statement sought to plead the reasons as to why he filed a police complaint in spite of receiving Rs.03 crores from the plaintiff, he thereafter, failed to appear in the present Suit, let alone lead any evidence in support of such plea.
45. The Clause 4 of the Agreement is clear and unambiguous, wherein, it states that if defendant no.1 after receiving the amount of Rs.03 crores from the plaintiff initiates any case of any nature against the plaintiff, it shall forthwith return the amount of Rs.03 crores to the plaintiff.
46. The question will now remain that whether the defendant no.1, having filed a criminal complaint on the basis whereof an FIR has been registered against the plaintiff and investigation has been initiated by the police, is liable to refund amount of Rs.03 crores only because he filed the criminal complaint.
47. In my view, the defendant no.1 having breached the contract would have to pay damages for such breach to the plaintiff. The stipulation of return of Rs.03 crores in the Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.P-1/1) is in the nature of liquidated damages. To seek liquidated damages, the plaintiff must prove that it has by the breach suffered damages, and that, the stipulation of liquidated damages was not by way of penalty but a genuine pre-estimate of the damages that the plaintiff is liable to suffer due to the breach.
48. In Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA & Anr., (2015) 4 SCC 136, the Supreme Court explained the law on compensation for breach of contract under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as under:
“43. On a conspectus of the above authorities, the law on compensation for breach of contract under Section 74 can be stated to be as follows:
43.1. Where a sum is named in a contract as a liquidated amount payable by way of damages, the party complaining of a breach can receive as reasonable compensation such liquidated amount only if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damages fixed by both parties and found to be such by the court. In other cases, where a sum is named in a contract as a liquidated amount payable by way of damages, only reasonable compensation can be awarded not exceeding the amount so stated. Similarly, in cases where the amount fixed is in the nature of penalty, only reasonable compensation can be awarded not exceeding the penalty so stated. In both cases, the liquidated amount or penalty is the upper limit beyond which the court cannot grant reasonable compensation.
43.2. Reasonable compensation will be fixed on well-known principles that are applicable to the law of contract, which are to be found inter alia in Section 73 of the Contract Act.
43.3. Since Section 74 awards reasonable compensation for damage or loss caused by a breach of contract, damage or loss caused is a sine qua non for the applicability of the section.
43.4. The section applies whether a person is a plaintiff or a defendant in a suit.
43.5. The sum spoken of may already be paid or be payable in future.
43.6. The expression “whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby” means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded.
43.7. Section 74 will apply to cases of forfeiture of earnest money under a contract. Where, however, forfeiture takes place under the terms and conditions of a public auction before agreement is reached, Section 74 would have no application.”

49. In the present case, the defendant no.1 having settled the dispute with the plaintiff and having received Rs.03 crores from the plaintiff in full and final settlement of his claim, however, has still filed a criminal complaint with the police, and therefore, has acted in breach of the contract. I must herein emphasise that that the onus would have been on defendant no.1 to show that he had legitimate cause to file the police complaint inspite of the agreement, however, the defendant no.1 remaining ex parte, failed to prove the same. In fact, no effort has been made to inform this Court of the outcome of the investigation carried out by the police.
50. As far as the damages suffered by the plaintiff are concerned, the plaintiff would have suffered not only humiliation but also inconvenience, having to face the investigation.
51. Therefore, applying the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath (supra), the plaintiff is held entitled to recover the liquidated damages of Rs.03 crores from the defendant no.1.
52. The plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, which was earlier paid by the plaintiff to defendant. There is no mention of this amount in the Agreement dated 14.06.2014 (Ex.P-1/1). Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for this amount of Rs.50 lakhs is also hereby rejected.
53. The plaintiff has also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Keeping in view the nature of the Agreement, and the allegations, especially the fact that though the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, it is the plaintiff who paid an amount of Rs.03 crores to the defendant no.1, the plaintiff is held entitled to interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of recovery of the Decretal amount.
54. In view of the above, the plaintiff is held entitled to a Decree of damages of a sum of Rs.03 crores against defendant no.1. The claim against defendant no.2 is rejected.
55. It is, however, made clear that this Judgment shall have no bearing on the investigation in the FIR no. 37/2015. The same shall be carried on without being influenced by any observations made in the present Judgment.

Conclusion
56. In view of the above, a Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 directing the defendant no.1 to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.03 crores along with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of payment. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the Suit.
57. Let a Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
OCTOBER 15, 2024/rv/VS

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

CS(OS) 28/2015 Page 1 of 20