Delhi High Court
Ridhi Sethi & Anr vs Niit Ltd. on 27 July, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 836/2012 with CM 12672/2012(stay)
Date of Decision: 27.07.2012
RIDHI SETHI & ANR ...... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Indu Kaul with Ms. Sonia
Singhani, Advocates.
Versus
NIIT LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges
order dated 11.05.2012 of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ-
1), South, Saket District Courts, New Delhi.
2. A suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Order
37 CPC was decreed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge on
18.08.2011. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal under section 96
CPC. Vide order dated 26.03.2012, the petitioners/appellants were
directed to deposit the decreetal amount within 15 days. The petitioners
thereafter filed an application under section 151 CPC for recalling the
said order and stay of the execution of the decree. Vide order dated
11.05.2012, which is under challenge, the request was declined, but
however, further 7 days time was given to deposit the decreetal amount.
These orders dated 26.03.2012 and 11.05.2012 are under challenge in
the instant petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who submitted
that the petitioner Ridhi Sethi was a small time employee of the
respondent and there was no condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by
the petitioners to the respondent as towards satisfaction of service. She
submitted that the agreement dated 11.08.2008 was one sided and did
not stipulate any mandatory condition for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. Having gone through the said agreement dated 11.08.2008, which
was executed by the petitioner No. 2 in pursuance of the appointment of
petitioner No. 1, in favour of the respondent herein, it is noted that the
petitioner No. 1 had agreed to serve the respondent company for at least
one year and in case of her default in serving the company for at least
one year, to compensate the plaintiff as per the terms of the said
agreement. In Clause 1 (c) of the agreement, it is covenanted that in case
she fails to serve the respondent company before the expiry of one year
from the date of joining, she will specifically pay to the respondent
company a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, being the partial amount of expenses
incurred by the respondent company for providing her trainings and
developmental activities. Both the petitioners agreed to be jointly and
severally liable for this. The learned trial court passed a decree of
recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest against the petitioners on merit.
The learned ADJ directed the petitioners to deposit the decreetal amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest, as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal
on merits.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix, I do not see any
illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned ADJ. The
petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JULY 27, 2012
awanish
