Delhi High Court
Mr. Yogesh Bhatia & Anr. vs Rtc Restaurants (India) Ltd. on 25 January, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 20th Janaury, 2010
Date of Order: January 25, 2010
CM(M) No. 73/2010
% 25.01.2010
Mr. Yogesh Bhatia & Anr. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate
Versus
RTC Restaurants (India) Ltd. ... Respondent
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred against an order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court whereby an
application of the defendant (petitioner herein) under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC was
disposed of and conditional leave to defend was granted to the petitioner on the
condition of his depositing a sum of Rs. 1.75 lac (50% of the suit amount) in the Court
within 45 days.
2. The respondent had filed a suit under Order 37 CPC on the basis of a
written agreement between the parties which the petitioner entered into with the
respondent at the time of taking employment with respondent. Vide this contract, the
petitioner had agreed that it would serve the respondent for a period of three years
minimum. The petitioner was also to undergo training in USA during this period of
service at the expense of the respondent. It was provided that in case the petitioner
did not serve the respondent for stipulated period of three years, he shall pay a sum
of Rs.3.5 lac to the respondent. The petitioner had taken a defence before the Trial
Court that the petitioner was not willing to undergo the training since at that time he
was blessed with a baby daughter and he needed some time to spend with his wife
and newborn child but the respondent failed to understand this and coerced him to
undergo the training. He agreed to undergo the training under these circumstances
and he also was made to sign the agreement and furnish a guarantee of Rs.3.5 lac
under coercion. The respondent denied all the assertions. The Trial Court
considered all the documents filed by the parties. One of the documents, filed by the
respondent was the resignation letter dated 17.5.2008 addressed by the petitioner to
the respondent which reads as under:
"To
The Chief Operating Officer
Ruby Tuesday
New Delhi
Sub: Resignation
Sir,
The purpose of this letter is to announce my resignation from
Ruby Tuesday, with immediate effect. I am taking this decision for
better opportunity that will act as a catalyst in my career.
This was not an easy decision to make on my part. The past one
and half years have been very rewarding. In the same breath, I
would like to thank everyone for the cooperation extended to me
for making my stint great and unforgettable learning experience.
Yours faithfully
Yogesh Bhatia
Training Manager"
3. It is not the contention of the petitioner that he had written resignation
letter under coercion. After considering the resignation written by the petitioner, the
Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defence taken by the petitioner was a
sham defence and the petitioner was not truthful. The tenor of letter shows that he
had resigned from the company for better opportunities. The Trial Court also
considered that the defendant (petitioner) had at no stage protested against the
plaintiff company (respondent herein) about any harassment, torture, ill treatment etc.
The Trial Court found no force in the defence raised however, still granted conditional
leave to defend.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Yuvneet Suri & Anr. v.
Round the Clock Stores Ltd. CM(M) 829/2007 and submitted that under similar
circumstances this Court had upheld the decision of the Trial Court of granting
unconditional leave.
5. It is settled law that every case has to be decided on the basis of facts
of that case. The broad principles of granting leave to defend have been noted by the
Trial Court in this case and the trial Court after considering facts of the case had
come to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for grant of unconditional leave.
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to substitute its own
discretion in place of discretion of the Trial Court nor this Court acts as a Court of
Appeal to re-appreciate the entire facts & law and to pass a judgment as Court of
Appeal. This Court exercises only supervisory jurisdiction only to ensure that the
procedure followed by Trial Court was in accordance with law and the Trial Court has
not ignored the basic principles of law applicable in this case and has not stepped
outside the jurisdiction.
6. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment was cited
by him but it has not been analyzed by the Trial Court. It is observed that many a
times the irrelevant judgments which do not have any bearing on the case are cited
by the advocates. It is not necessary for the Trial Court to quote each and every
judgment in its judgment and analyze each judgment and give a finding whether the
judgment was applicable in the case or not. It is expected from the Trial Court only to
apply correct principles of law and apply its discretion in a judicious manner. It is not
necessary for the Trial court to burden its judgment with all cited judgments of both
the parties whether relevant or irrelevant. The precedents are for guidance of Trial
Court so that Trial Court applies correct law. Precedents of the superior courts are
not to be mechanically reproduced in judgments passed only to say that this
judgment was not applicable or the facts were different and make the order
unnecessary long. An order of the Trial Court cannot be interfered on the ground that
the Trial Court did not cite the judgment in its order which was produced before it so
long the trail court has applied correct law.
I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
January 25, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
