Gaurav Gupta vs Nidhi Bansal And Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5713 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                    Judgment Pronounced on: 15.12.2010

+           CS(OS) No.1772/2010

GAURAV GUPTA                             .....     Plaintiff

                            - versus -

NIDHI BANSAL AND ORS.                    .....   Defendants

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Ms.Geeta    Luthra,   Sr.Advocate          with
                   Mr.Jatin Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Defendants: Mr.Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                           No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                    No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                   No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

IA 12488/2010 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC)

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.20,01,000/-

towards damages and permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiff is the husband of defendant No.1,

son-in-law of defendants No.2 & 4 and brother-in-law of

defendant No.3. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the

defendants are visiting the office of Nestle India Ltd., in

Gurgaon where he is working and are also writing

defamatory letters against him to his employers. It is

alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 has been writing

letters to the employer of the plaintiff, to wreck personal

vendetta on him and to ensure that his services are

terminated. It is further alleged that she is trying to malign

the reputation of plaintiff by making calls and baseless

allegations. It is also alleged that on 09.08.2010,

defendants No.1 & 2 came to the office of the plaintiff and

created a scene in the office, alleging that he had absconded

and was not taking the calls of defendant No.1. Defendant

No.1 is also alleged to have called up the junior of the

plaintiff, Pankaj Batra and threatened him. The plaintiff

claims to have received a call from HR department of its

employer asking him to refrain defendant No.1 from

involving the company in their private matters and from

causing nuisance in the office so that the office environment

is not spoiled. It is also alleged that on 10.08.2010, the

plaintiff received a call from his office informing him that

defendant No.1 was in his office with their daughter and

was threatening to leave their daughter alone in the office.

She also started screaming and shouting at the reception

and insisted on leaving the daughter of the parties at the

reception. When the other employees tried to pacify her,

she started abusing the plaintiff in the filthiest language.

The plaintiff has claimed damages amounting to

Rs.20,01,000/- from the defendants besides injunction

restraining them from coming to his office and creating any

disturbance there. He has also sought injunction

restraining them from corresponding with his office.

3. The defendants have contested the suit and have

taken a preliminary objection that this Court has no

territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. They have

also claimed that the suit is barred by Section 41(i) of

Specific Relief Act. On merits, it is alleged that the plaintiff

had left defendant No.1 and their two children on the

pretext of going to Pant Nagar. He did not return thereafter

to the Flat in which they were residing in Dwarka. On

merits, it has been denied that defendant No.1 had

misbehaved in the office of the plaintiff.

4. In support of his contention that Delhi Courts have

no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit, the learned counsel

for the defendants has relied upon the provisions contained

in Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure which

provides that suit for the determination of any right or

interest in immovable property other than those specified in

clauses (a) (b) and (c) shall be instituted in the Court within

the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is

situated. I am unable to appreciate how Section 16(d) of the

Code of Civil Procedure applies to the present suit. This is

not a suit claiming any right, title or interest in an

immovable property situated in Gurgaon. The grievance of

the plaintiff is that he is working with Nestle India Ltd. and

is posted in its office at Gurgaon, the defendants are

creating nuisance in his office and are writing defamatory

letters to his employers. This does not amount to claiming

any right, title or interest in the property in which the office

of Nestle India Ltd. is functioning in Gurgaon. Therefore,

prima facie, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the present

suit.

5. Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act provides that

an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the

plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to

the assistance of the court. At this stage when the Court is

deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction

during pendency of the suit, it is difficult for the Court to

take a view as regards inter-se conduct of the parties to the

suit. This is a matter which can be decided only after trial,

since there are accusations and counter-accusations by the

husband and wife against each other.

6. Admittedly, defendant No.1 has filed a petition

against the petition under Domestic Violence Act. A divorce

petition has also been filed by the plaintiff against defendant

No.1. An FIR has also been lodged by defendant No.1

against the plaintiff. There can be no objection to any of the

defendants taking recourse to legal proceedings. However,

the defendants have no right to create nuisance in the office

where the plaintiff is working and to defame him amongst

his colleagues and superiors. A perusal of the letter dated

10.08.2010 sent by defendant No.1 to Nestle India Ltd.

would show that on 10.08.2010, she along with her children

had gone to the office of the plaintiff and had a talk with one

Mr. Sewak there. In this letter, defendant No.1 also alleged

that the entire office staff was hand-in-glove with Mr.Gaurav

Gupta who had left his wife and two seven month old

children on street. She also conveyed her decision to stage

a peaceful march/demonstration outside the office of Nestle

India Ltd. at Gurgaon as well as outside its registered office

at Connaught Place, New Delhi. A perusal of the letter

dated 20.08.2010 written by Nestle India Ltd. to defendant

No.1shows that she exhibited undesirable conduct on

10.08.2010 which disturbed the working of the office. The

letter dated 07.09.2010 written by Nestle India Ltd. to the

plaintiff also shows that defendant No.1 visited Nestle India

Ltd. on that day and created disturbance at the reception

area. It further shows that she had earlier visited the office

and threatened to leave the children in the office for the

plaintiff to take care of them. The plaintiff was advised by

his employers to take necessary steps to ensure that his

personal dispute with defendant No.1 is resolved outside the

office. He was informed that it would be his responsibility

to ensure that handle the matter with her, without

disturbing the office working.

7. The defendants have no right to visit the office

premises of Nestle India Ltd. where the plaintiff is working

and disturb the peace and working environment of that

office by creating scenes there and indulging in

unacceptable behavior. Taking recourse to such means

would not be a lawful action. The plaintiff is not the only

employee of Nestle India Ltd. working in that office. The

defendants have no right to interrupt the functioning of the

office of Nestle India Ltd. by creating nuisance there or to

hold any dharna/demonstration outside the office. If she

has any grievance against the plaintiff on account of his

neglecting her or her children or treating her with cruelty,

she can take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings

against the plaintiff but, she is not entitled to enter his

office and disturb the peace and tranquility of office and

defame him in the eyes of his colleagues.

8. A perusal of the letter dated 16.10.2010 written by

defendant No.1 to SHO Police Station, DLF City, Phase-II,

Gurgaon, with copy endorsed to Nestle India Ltd. at its

Gurgaon office as well as its Connaught Circus, New Delhi

Office, would show that she alleged manipulation by the

defendants in the attendance sheet of the Company on

certain dates on which the plaintiff is alleged to be present

outside Tis Hazari Court and/or at C.A.W. Cell, Maurya

Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. A perusal of the letter dated

25.10.2010 written by Nestle India Ltd. to the plaintiff also

shows that a communication was sent by defendant No.1 to

various authorities making allegations regarding the

products of the company on the basis of various statements

attributable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can have no

grievance if the defendants levy allegations with respect to

products of Nestle India Ltd. but if the allegations are based

on the statements attributed to the plaintiff, it is quite

obvious that the purpose is to create problem for the

plaintiff with his employer by alleging that he despite being

an employee of Nestle India Ltd. was levelling allegations

against that company. The defendants have no legal right

to tarnish the image of the plaintiff by making false

accusation against him, particularly when those

accusations have the potential of jeopardizing the

employment of the plaintiff. If the defendants are not

restrained from visiting the office of the plaintiff, it will not

be possible to ensure that the defendants do not create

nuisance there and do not disturb the functioning of the

office.

9. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,

the defendants are restrained from visiting the office of

Nestle India Ltd. at Gurgaon without prior permission of

this Court and from writing any defamatory letters to Nestle

India Ltd. against the plaintiff.

10. The application stands disposed of.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

DECEMBER 15, 2010 'SN'