Delhi High Court
Neeraj Shukla vs Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) ... on 30 January, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 11/2015
% Decided on: 30th January, 2015
NEERAJ SHUKLA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kamal Kr. Pandey, Adv.
versus
FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES (P) LTD. ..... Respondent
Through None
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM Nos. 1639-1640/2015
Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.R.P. 11/2015 & CM 1638/2015 (stay)
1. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 5 th December, 2014
whereby leave to defend was granted to the respondent prefers the present
petition.
2. The petitioner filed suit under Order 37 CPC claiming that he was an
employee of the defendant company and was appointed as Regional Head,
Sales and Operations of Southern Region vide appointment letter dated 4th
May, 2012 on which day he joined. On 7 th August, 2012 by a
communication through e-mail he tendered his resignation with request for
waiving of the notice period and his resignation was duly accepted with
effect from the same date and the notice period was also waived off. The
petitioner surrendered all the assets of the defendant company and on 21 st
August, 2012 sent a mail requesting the defendant/respondent to clear all the
dues by making full and final payment which include his salary from 26 th
July, 2012 to 7th August, 2012 amounting to `1,95,000/-, reimbursement of
`61,082/- as travel expenses vide travel bills dated 10th June, 2012, 24th June,
2012, 4th July, 2012 and 5th August, 2012 and reimbursement on heads of
medical, driver, petrol and entertainment amounting to `50,753/- for the
period from 5th May, 2012 to 7th June, 2012. Since despite repeated
reminders the amount has not been paid, the plaint was filed for recovery of
`3,07,701/- along with interest thereon.
3. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order noted that in fact in
the circumstances of the case suit under Order 37 CPC itself was not
maintainable, there being no liquidated demand and no contract out of which
the amount claimed by the plaintiff has arisen; however since initially
summons were sent as prescribed under Order 37 CPC and triable issues
have been raised by the defendant, unconditional leave to defend was
granted.
4. In the leave to defend application filed by the respondent, the
following issues were raised:
"I) Whether the defendant waived off in favour of the
plaintiff one month's written notice from the plaintiff as
per term No.10 of employment regarding
termination/resignation on 07/08/2012 during probation?
II) Whether the plaintiff in the absence of one month's
written notice is entitled to claim one month's salary in
lieu thereof as per term No.10 of employment regarding
resignation during probation?
III) whether the defendant ever admitted that the plaintiff is
entitled to Rs.1,95,865/- (one lakh ninety five thousand
eight hundred sixty five) as salary payable to the plaintiff
by the defendant?
IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to `1,95,865/- (one lakh
ninety five thousand eight hundred sixty five) as salary
payable to the defendant under contract of employment
or as a debt?
V) Whether the defendant ever admitted in favour of
plaintiff for reimbursement of travel expenses to the tune
of `61,082/-? or admitted the alleged documents relied in
this regard by the plaintiff?
VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to `61,082/- (sixty one
thousand eighty one) as reimbursement of travel
expenses incurred for defendant?
VII) Whether the defendant ever admitted in favour of
plaintiff for reimbursement for period from 05.05.2012
(date of joining) to 07.08.212 (date of resignation) on
heads of medical, driver, petrol & entertainment to the
tune of `50,753/-?
VIII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to `50,753/- on heads of
medical, driver, petrol and entertainment reimbursement
for period from 05.05.2012 (date of joining) to
07.08.2012 (date of resignation) from the defendant? Or
admitted the alleged documents relied in this regard by
the plaintiff?
IX) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to `5000/- as legal notice
fee against the defendant without any
admission/acknowledgement/debt/contract in this regard
by defendant?
X) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to `25,000/- as counsel
fee against the defendant for filing this suit without any
admission/acknowledgement/debt/contract in this regard
by defendant?
XI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 12% interest against
the defendant without any
admission/acknowledgement/ debt/contract in this
regard?
XII) Whether there is an acknowledgement or admission
debt/contract made by the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff for an amount of `3,07,701/-?
XIII) Whether the relief for decree of `3,07,701/- and/or
pendentelite interest @ 12% p.a. as prayed in suit can be
granted as liquidated debt or contract amount in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant?
5. Vide the appointment letter dated 4th May, 2012 the monthly salary of
the petitioner with the break-up was as under:
S.No. COMPONENT AMOUNT P.M.(`)
1 Basic Salary 80000.00
2 HRA 40000.00
3 Conveyance Allowance 800.00
4 Special Allowance 19104.00
TOTAL 139904.00
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that besides this
letter another communication was sent to him on 4th May, 2012 stating that
the petitioner would be entitled to additional reimbursement for office use
wherever applicable subject to upper limits as indicated:
S.No. EXPENSE HEAD Entitlements Up to
(` P.A.)
1 Medical 15,000
2 Driver 60,000
3 Petrol 60,000
4 Entertainment 60,000
7. In the leave to defend application the respondent denied the claim of
the petitioner with regard to medical, driver, petrol and entertainment dues to
the extent of `50,753/-. A perusal of the letter dated 4th May, 2012 now
being relied by the petitioner would show that the upper limit for
reimbursement for medical, driver, petrol and entertainment was `1,95,000/-
per year. In the plaint the petitioner himself stated that he was claiming a
sum of `50,753/- as reimbursement on the heads of medical, driver, petrol
and entertainment for a period from 5th May, 2012 to 7th June, 2012. As
noted above, the reimbursement on account of medical, driver, petrol and
entertainment being `1,95,000/- per annum and the claim for one month
itself being `50,753/- itself raises a triable issue. Thus even without going
any further on the issues raised, I find no infirmity in the impugned order
granting leave to defend.
8. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2015
'ga'
