Delhi High Court
Indbank Merchant Banking Service ... vs Sh. Sanjay Vashisth on 9 December, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 671/2014 & CM No. 11274-75/2014
% 9th December , 2014
INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICE LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
SH. SANJAY VASHISTH ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. N.K.Jha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, impugns the order of
the trial court dated 23.4.2014 by which the trial court has rejected the
prayer of the petitioner/defendant for return of the plaint. The petitioner
pleaded that the courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as
respondent/plaintiff had been posted to Chennai and the dues which are
being claimed are only for the period of posting at Chennai.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has however shown to me the
order passed by the defendant/petitioner/employer dated 28.2.2012 which
CMM 671/2014 Page 1 of 4
specifically notes that the transfer to Chennai stands cancelled and the
respondent/plaintiff was posted to Jaipur. This order reads as under:-
"INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICES LTD.
Registered Office: Chennai
Transfer Order No. 54/2011-12 dated 28.02.2012
Our earlier Transfer Order No. 38/2011-12 dated 14.12.2011,
transferring Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Senior Secretarial Officer, New
Delhi Branch to Service Branch, Chennai stands cancelled. Instead he
is posted to Jaipur for the terminal to be opened at Indian Bank
Dharma Heights, 10 Moti Lal Atal Marg, opp. to Ganpathi Plaza,
Jaipur-302001.
You will be dealer in-charge of the terminal. As the transfer is
made at your request, you are not eligible for any financial claims,
reimbursement associated with transfer.
s/d
S.Selvaraj,
Executive Vice President"
3. It is not disputed before this Court that the dues which are being
claimed by the respondent/plaintiff are the dues which are till the posting at
Jaipur and not for the period after being posted to Jaipur. This position is
conceded even by the counsel for the petitioner/defendant/employer.
4. The only issue to be decided is that whether for the period from
passing of the transfer order dated 14.12.2011 transferring the
respondent/plaintiff to Chennai till the order dated 28.2.2012 was passed,
CMM 671/2014 Page 2 of 4
whether the courts at Chennai will have jurisdiction or whether the courts at
Delhi have jurisdiction.
5. In my opinion, the order of the employer dated 28.2.2012 reproduced
above makes it clear that the transfer of the respondent/plaintiff to Chennai
had been cancelled and it was not as if the respondent/plaintiff stood
transferred to Chennai and he was transferred thereafter to Jaipur. Once the
order of transfer to Chennai stands cancelled the respondent/plaintiff will
continue to remain posted at Delhi, and hence the dues which would be
claimed by the respondent/plaintiff as an employee from the
petitioner/defendant/employer will be for the period of posting in Delhi prior
to being posted at Jaipur, and hence the courts at Delhi would have territorial
jurisdiction.
6. For the sake of completion of narration, I must state that
respondent/plaintiff does not press the prayer in the suit with respect to
claim of provident fund dues and it is stated that for such dues of
approximately about Rs.8000/- etc, or any other amount, the same will be
claimed by the respondent/plaintiff before the appropriate authority being
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
CMM 671/2014 Page 3 of 4
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is
therefore dismissed. No costs.
DECEMBER 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
