Delhi District Court
Karmic Events Pvt Ltd vs Puneet Chaudhary on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No. 3891/24
CNR No. DLST010074322024
Karmic Events Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Signatory,
F-301, 3rd Floor,
Chaudhary Prem Singh Lane,
Lado Sarai, New Delhi 110 030. ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Puneet Chaudhary
S/o Mukesh Chaudhary,
R/o. Shobha Nagar, Foundry Nagar,
Kuber Put Agency,
Near RVS Farm House,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282 006. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.07.2024
Date of arguments : 22.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2025.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY AND DAMAGES
AMOUNTING TO RS.3,40,170/- ALONG WITH INTEREST.
CS No.3891/2016 page 1 of 23
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for
Rs. 2,39,390/- towards amount due from the defendant in
accordance with the Appointment Letter dated 12.06.2023;
for Rs.1,00,000/- on account of losses and damages caused
to the plaintiff; interest @ 12% p.a from the date of receipt
of Legal Notice dated 01.05.2024 which comes to
Rs.1170/-; pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a
from the date of sending Legal Notice dated 01.05.2024 till
realization and for cost of the suit.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a Private
Limited Company having its registered office at F-301, 3rd
Floor, Chaudhari Prem Singh Lane, Lado Sarai, New
Delhi, 110030 and is engaged in the business of theme-
based decoration for 13 plus years, thus enjoying immense
goodwill and market reputation. The Plaintiff Company
offers a vide range of services such as shopping mall
décor, brand activations, organising and planning luxury
weddings, corporate events, exhibitions, specially curated
events, etc. and as such, has under its employ a team of
vide variety of experts, planners and designers.
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the Defendant is an
ex-employee of the Plaintiff Company and was employed
CS No.3891/2016 page 2 of 23
with the Plaintiff Company from 12.06.2023 onwards at
the position of Production Executive vide Appointment
Letter dated 12.06.2023 at a monthly remuneration of Rs.
26,000/- which laid down the terms and conditions for the
employment of the Defendant including clauses such as
that of appointment, probationary period, remuneration,
termination, bond clause, among several others. The
Defendant, after duly reading, understanding and
executing the said Appointment Letter joined the service
of the Plaintiff Company 12.06.2023 onwards and thus
unconditionally and irrevocably agreed to abide by the
contract of employment and entered into a legally binding
contract with the Plaintiff, thereby creating an Employer-
Employee relationship between the parties herein. It was
further incumbent upon the Defendant to conduct himself
with utmost integrity and follow the rules and regulations
of the Plaintiff Company.
4. It is further averred that upon the appointment of the
Defendant, the Plaintiff Company undertook to train,
develop and upskill the Defendant on account of the fact
that the nature of the work of the Defendant was highly
professional and creative in nature. In return, the Plaintiff
Company mandated a minimum commitment period of one
CS No.3891/2016 page 3 of 23
(1) year from the Defendant and the same was enumerated
vide Training Bond of the Appointment Letter duly
executed between the parties. Subsequently, the Plaintiff
Company spent considerable resources such as time,
money and efforts on enhancing the skills of the Defendant
and heavily invested in training the Defendant to get
accustomed to the theme-based decoration work. In the
absence of any previous work, the training imparted by the
Plaintiff set the Defendant apart from his peers and set the
Defendant up for opportunities that he may not have
received if not for the training of the Plaintiff and thus the
Defendant was the beneficiary of training at the expense of
the Plaintiff Company.
5. It is further averred that initially, the employment of the
Defendant was at a probation period of 180 days from the
date of joining i.e. 12.06.2023 onwards and the services of
the Defendant were deemed to be confirmed unless the
Defendant received a letter of probation extension in
writing. No letter of probation extension was given to the
Defendant and hence, the services of the Defendant were
deemed to be in the said category of post probation.
6. It is further averred that post the probation period, the
Defendant was bound to provide the Plaintiff company
CS No.3891/2016 page 4 of 23
with a 45 days’ notice period from the day next to
resignation or salary in lieu thereof in accordance with
Clause 2.3 of the Appointment Letter dated 12.06.2023.
Post the probationary period and during the course of his
employment, the Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff
Company in multiple high stakes projects which required
the Defendant to deal with a wide variety of clients of the
Plaintiff. However, the Defendant for unexplained reasons
and without any prior sanctioned leave or approval of any
senior absented himself from service from 21.01.2024
which was in direct contravention to the Defendant’s
obligations under the employment contract, particularly,
Clause 6.2 of the Appointment Letter.
7. It is further averred that when the Defendant continued to
remain absent from his service, the Plaintiff Company
through its employees made multiple efforts to contact the
Defendant and enquire about the whereabouts of the
Defendant but to no avail. Subsequently, the Plaintiff sent
an e-mail dated 29.01.2024 to the Defendant to enquire
about his sudden absence from his service/ employment
and further informed the Defendant that such illegal
abandonment from work without any intimation amounts
to absconding of services. However, despite the multiple
CS No.3891/2016 page 5 of 23
efforts made by the Plaintiff Company, there was no
response or justification forthcoming from the Defendant
regarding his prolonged, unexplained absence. The
Defendant continued to remain absent without any
sanctioned leave or prior approval of any senior as
mandated under Clause 6.2 of the Appointment Letter
which amounts to voluntary abandonment of employment
on the part of the Defendant.
8. It is further averred that the Defendant did not issue any
serving notice period whatsoever to the Plaintiff Company,
despite the fact that the same was mandated under Clause
2.4 of the Appointment Letter. It is thus, apparent that in
absence of any notification to his superiors or any formal
leave application, the unexplained absence from work was
a direct violation of the employment conditions of the
Defendant and thus, amounted to breach of the terms and
conditions of the employment letter dated 12.06.2023. In
light of such a violation and the fact that despite the best
efforts, the Defendant could not be contacted, the Plaintiff
Company was left with no efficacious remedy other than to
terminate the services of the Defendant forthwith vide
termination letter dated 02.02.2024.
CS No.3891/2016 page 6 of 23
9. It is further averred that the termination letter dated
02.02.2024 was issued to the Defendant in accordance
with Clause 12 of the Appointment Letter which lays down
the conditions, mode and manner of termination of
employment. Accordingly, the case of the Defendant falls
under the conditions in clause 12 of the Appointment
Letter as the latter absented himself from service with no
prior approval and no intimation whatsoever. Moreover,
this was a grave breach of the terms of employment and
thus, mandated termination. Even otherwise, as per the
terms of the employment letter, the Plaintiff reserved the
right to terminate the Defendants employment without
assigning any reason as per Clause 12.1.
10. It is further averred that the Plaintiff Company’s policies
and Clause 2.4 of the said Appointment Letter of the
Defendant clearly laid down that in the event an Employee
ceases employment with the Plaintiff Company without
serving the notice period as mandated under the
aforementioned Clause 2.3 of the Appointment Letter, the
employee shall be deemed to be an absconder and the
Plaintiff company shall be entitled to recover dues from
the employee i.e. the Defendant.
CS No.3891/2016 page 7 of 23
11. It is further averred that the Defendant was deemed to be
an absconder since the Defendant left the services of the
Plaintiff Company on 21.01.2024 without any notice
period/sanctioned leave/ approval from his senior as
mandated under the Appointment Letter and Defendant
absented himself from service within one year from the
date of joining which is in a complete contravention to the
Bond Clause of the Appointment Letter. Since the Plaintiff
company had performed its duty and obligation of
investing into the training of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
company suffered great losses due to the illegal
abandonment by the Defendant of his employment, who
not just failed to honour its commitment but went a step
further, to do so without any reasonable explanation or
justification. As a result, the Plaintiff company was
derived of the expected services of the Defendant and
Plaintiff is entitled to the damages suffered by it due to the
breach of the training bond by the Defendant.
12. It is further averred that an employee who remains absent
without leave being sanctioned is on unauthorised absence
which justifies the termination of an employee. It is an
established principle of law that any employee who
remains absent from duty without leave or in excess of the
CS No.3891/2016 page 8 of 23
period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently
extended, shall be deemed to have left the services of the
corporation on his own accord without notice, thereby
terminating his contract of service with the corporation.
13. It is further averred that the said unjustified and arbitrary
acts of the Defendant of cessation from employment
within one year of join and without any notice period/
sanctioned leave/ approval from the senior caused huge
losses and damages to the Plaintiff Company, which are
being quantified to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- since the
Defendant was employed in multiple high-stake projects of
importance of the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff
Company duly served Legal Notice dated 01.05.2024 upon
the Defendant in light of the aforementioned Clauses of the
Appointment Letter and most importantly the Training
Bond Clause and Clause 2.3 of the Appointment Letter.
Despite duly receiving the aforementioned Legal Notice
dated 01.05.2024, the Defendant made no attempts
whatsoever to contact the Plaintiff Company and further
failed to make any payment whatsoever to the Defendant
which he was legally and contractually obligated to do.
Thus, the aforementioned arbitrary and illegal acts of the
Defendant clearly highlight the ulterior and mala fide
CS No.3891/2016 page 9 of 23
motive of the Defendant which have resulted in wrongful
gain to the Defendant and wrongful loss to the Plaintiff
Company. The Plaintiff company is left with no alternative
but to file the present suit seeking recovery of money from
the Defendant to the tune of Rs. 3,40,170/-.
14. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant.
Defendant appeared on 03.09.2024 and sought time to file
written statement. Thereafter, despite opportunities, the
defendant neither appeared before the Court nor filed
written statement and accordingly vide order dated
14.10.2024, the defence of defendant stood did not closed.
15. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.10.2024 following issues
were settled:
(1)Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery the
suit amount as prayed for, as prayed for prayer
clause (a) of plaint? OPP.
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of
recovery against the defendant as prayed for in
prayer clause (b) of plaint?OPP.
(3) If issue no. 1 and 2 are proved in
affirmative, whether plaintiff is entitled for
interest thereof if so, at what rate and period?
OPP.
(4)Relief.
CS No.3891/2016 page 10 of 23
16. Vide order dated 14.10.2024, with the consent of Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff, Sh. Pankaj Mendiratta, Advocate was
appointed as Local Commissioner for recording of
plaintiff’s evidence.
17. PW1 Sh. Ankit (AR of plaintiff company) tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 before Ld. Local
Commissioner and relied upon following documents:
(1) Authority Letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by
plaintiff Ex.PW1/2,
(2)Appointment Letter dated 12.06.2023
Ex.PW1/3,
(3)Print out of email dated 29.01.2024
Ex.PW1/4,
(4) Termination Letter dated 02.02.2024
Ex.PW1/5,
(5) Attendance Register Ex.PW1/6,
(6) Office copy of Legal Notice dated 01.05.2024
Ex.PW1/7,
(7) Original speed post receipts along with
tracking report Ex.PW1/8,
(8) Affidavit under Section 63 of BSA
Ex.PW1/9.
CS No.3891/2016 page 11 of 23
18. No one had appeared on behalf of defendant for cross
examination of PW1. Accordingly, the opportunity to cross
examine PW1 stood closed vide order dated 19.02.2025.
Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of
defendant’s evidence before Ld. Local Commissioner.
19. Since none had appeared on behalf of defendant before Ld.
Local Commissioner for recording defendant’s evidence,
the right of the defendant to lead defendant’s evidence
stood closed vide Order dated 16.04.2025.
20. I have heard final arguments and perused the record.
21. My issuewise findings are as under.
(1)Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery the suit amount as
prayed for, as prayed for prayer clause (a) of plaint? OPP.
and
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery against the
defendant as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of plaint?OPP.
22. Issue no. 1 and 2 are being taken up together. Onus to
prove these issues are on plaintiff.
23. First and foremost question to be adjudicated upon is as to
whether defendant himself had abandoned from the
employment and as such violated the employment
agreement.
CS No.3891/2016 page 12 of 23
24. It is contended on behalf of plaintiff that defendant had
failed to resume his services and continued to remain
absent without any extended sanctioned leave/approved of
any senior as mandated under clause 6.02 of the
Appointment Letter. The plaintiff company through its
employees also made multiple efforts to contact the
defendant and enquire the whereabouts of the defendant
but to no avail including the email dated 29.01.2024.
Hence, the defendant breached the terms and conditions of
the employment letter and the plaintiff company
terminated the services of the defendant vide termination
letter dated 02.02.2024. Thereafter, plaintiff sent legal
notice dated 01.05.2024. All these email, legal notice and
termination letter have been filed and duly proved by the
plaintiff during testimony of PW1.
25. From the perusal of contents of email exchanged between
plaintiff and defendant, it was plaintiff who gave one
opportunity to the defendant to join the office back but the
defendant remained absent from his service and failed to
provide any material information regarding his long
unjustified absence from the work without any sanctioned
leave or prior approval from any senior.
CS No.3891/2016 page 13 of 23
26. In view of above discussion, this court is of the considered
opinion that defendant of his own failed to resume his
services w.e.f. 21.01.2024 and continued to remain absent
without any extended sanctioned leave/approval of any
senior, in direct contravention of the defendant’s
obligations under the employment contract i.e. clause 6.2
of the Appointment Letter.
27. Now the next issue which is required to be adjudicated
upon is whether defendant is liable to pay Rs. 3,40,170/- to
the plaintiff towards salary/CTC of 45 days in view of
clause 2.3 of the Appointment Letter, training bond and
interest thereof.
28. As per employment agreement and training agreement
entered into between plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff
was to impart specialized training to the defendant and that
such training would result in the enhancement of the skills
of the defendant. The training bond is reproduced as under:
“(1) To permit the company to invest an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as
course fees towards your training and active unskilling;
(2) To regularly and diligently attend all courses,seminars
and workshops, whether virtually or physically, organized by the
company or third party service provider;
(3) To reimburse the Company the sum mentioned at clause
CS No.3891/2016 page 14 of 23
1 in the event of termination or cessation of employment before a
period of one (1) year from the date of joining;
(4) To use and employ the skills obtained through such
training and apply them to your job;
(5) The training bond will be effective for a year starting
from12 June 2023 in view of the cost incurred by the company in
respect of process of selection, induction, training and
development;”
29. Gist of the Training bond is that plaintiff was to impart
training to the defendant; defendant was to work for
plaintiff company for atleast one year; if defendant left the
job before completing stipulated period of one year,
defendant was to reimburse a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
plaintiff. It is interesting that there is provision of
reimbursement of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid by defendant if
he left the job but there is no provision of any such
compensation in the Training bond if plaintiff terminates
the services of the defendant, and in that case, and the
same is stipulated in Appointment Letter in clause 2.3 that
plaintiff will give 45 days notice and in case defendant left
job, the defendant will give one month notice. As such it
can be conveniently presumed that defendant was liable to
pay Rs. 2,00,000/- only in case he was imparted training in
terms of Training bond and in his place new employee
CS No.3891/2016 page 15 of 23
was recruited by the plaintiff company.
30. As per testimony of PW1 as well as training bond, the
plaintiff was supposed to impart training to the defendant
but plaintiff has failed to file on record any document to
show that any professional/expert was engaged by plaintiff
for giving training to the defendant or any expenses were
incurred by the plaintiff on the training of the defendant, as
such plaintiff has failed to establish that it had given any
training to the defendant during his tenure and/or incurred
any expenses for the same.
31. It is also pertinent to mention herein that it is not a
simplecitor case that there was a bond furnish by defendant
that if he leaves the job, he shall be liable to pay the
compensation as mentioned in the bond, but in the present
case there is Training Bond with specific conditions which
were to be acted upon by the plaintiff i.e. giving training to
the defendant and recruitment new employee in place of
defendant, if defendant left the job without completing
fixed tenure.
32. It is open truth that bonds which are get signed from the
employees by the employers amount to bonded labour in
perpetually where virtually an employee has no bargaining
CS No.3891/2016 page 16 of 23
power. In the present case also on the one hand it is
defendant who has to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in case he left the
job, but there is no such damages/compensation clause for
the plaintiff if he does not act as per Training Bond.
Insofar as issue regarding enforceability of penalty clauses
of the bonds are concerned, lets have a look at the legal
position. These clauses are in the nature of penalty. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maula Bux v. Union
of India 1969 (2) SCC 554 had held that “If the forfeiture
is of the nature of penalty section 74 applies. Where under
the terms of contract the party in breach has undertaken to
pay a sum of money or to forfeit a sum of money which he
has already paid to the party complaining of a breach of
contract, the undertaking is of a nature of penalty.”
33. Reliance is also made to AIR 1963 AP 312 and AIR 1987
SC 1260, gist of said authorities is that while invoking
penalty clause as per section 74 of the Indian Contract Act,
it is not necessary to award compensation in stated in
agreement, rather a reasonable compensation is to be
awarded irrespective to the fact whether the party invoking
the clause has actually suffered the damages or not.
34. Reference is also made to the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Fatesh Chand vs. Balkishan Dass,
CS No.3891/2016 page 17 of 23
AIR 1963 SC 1405, Maula Baux (Supra) and Union of
India vs. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231 and M/s
Scipa India Ltd vs. Shri Manas Partim Deb
Munu/6554/2011 RFA No.596/2012. Ratio of these cases
is that clauses of liquidated damages which are in the
nature of penalty are void and the liquidated damages are
only upper limit of damages which are awarded once
actual damages are proved. That such legal position
applies when losses from breach of the contract can
otherwise be proved, and that when losses cannot be
proved in that case, the liquidated damages specified can
always be recovered in terms of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta vs.
Sons Ltd vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co Ltd.
AIR 1962 1314 (1).
35. In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw
Pipes Ltd, 2003 (2) RAJ 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down that when a contract has been broken,
the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive
compensation for any loss which naturally arise in the
usual course of things from such breach. The person
aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove actual loss
or damage suffered by him before he can claim a decree,
the court is competent to award reasonable compensation
CS No.3891/2016 page 18 of 23
in case of breach even if no actual damage is proved to
have been suffered in consequences of the breach of
contract.
36. It is admitted case of the defendant that he had accepted
the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and
executed bond. Under the bond, the defendant was to serve
the plaintiff company for a period of one year. The
defendant had joined the plaintiff company on 12.06.2023
and remained absent from service without any prior
approval w.e.f. 21.01.2024 and as such the plaintiff
company issued termination letter on 02.02.2024.
37. Now this court has to see as to what reasonable
compensation is to be awarded to the plaintiff company.
Having regard to the fact that plaintiff has failed to
establish that it had imparted any training to the defendant
and had incurred expenses for the same, which was
supposed to be reasonable esteem of the total sum of bond
i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was to be/had incurred by the
plaintiff, besides other miscellaneous expenses, this court
is of the considered view that there is no question of
invoking penalty clause in respect of the Training
Agreement/Bond. However, as per Clause no. 2.3 of
appointment letter Ex.PW1/3, termination of employment
CS No.3891/2016 page 19 of 23
by employee shall be 45 days notice in writing. Defendant
all of a sudden proceeded on unauthorised leave without
giving any prior stipulated notice of 45 days, as such, this
Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would
meet having held defendant liable to pay 45 days of his
basic salary as compensation/damages to the plaintiff
company which comes to be Rs.39,000/- (Rs.26,000/- plus
Rs.13,000/-).
38. Accordingly plaintiff is held entitled to decree for recovery
of Rs.39,000/- from the defendant.
39. Issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant.
(3) If issue no. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether
plaintiff is entitled for interest thereof if so, at what rate
and period? OPP.
40. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% per annum.
Apparently, the interest which is being claimed by the
plaintiff is on the higher side. This Court would like to
make a reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court in the case of Geetu Lakhpat & another Vs. Jaipal
[2011 SCC OnLine Del 1706] wherein it was observed as
follows:
CS No.3891/2016 page 20 of 23
“2. Learned counsel for the appellants has
in the appeal only prayed for reduction of
the unduly high rate of interest of 2% per
month which has been granted by the trial
Court. Reliance has firstly been placed
upon Section 3 of the Usurious Loans
Act, 1918 (as applicable to Delhi) as per
which in case of an unsecured loan the
maximum rate of interest which is
allowed is 12−1/2% per annum simple.
Learned counsel for the appellants also
relies upon various judgments of the
Supreme Court as per which the Supreme
Court has directed the Courts to take note
of the consistent fall in the rates of
interest on account of the changed
economic scenario, more so when there is
time spent in litigation. These judgments
of the Supreme Court are Rajendra
Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing
& Area Development Authority, (2005) 6
SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC
181, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006)
7 SCC 700 & Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam
Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC
720 and State of Rajasthan v. Ferro
Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd, (2009) 3
Arb. LR 140 (SC).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, in
reply, states that the respondent is entitled
to interest @ 2% per month because the
said rate was a contractual rate of interest.
CS No.3891/2016 page 21 of 23
4.In my opinion, the arguments as urged
by the counsel for the appellants are well
founded. In the present date, granting of
interest @ 2% per month is both
exorbitant and usurious. The Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments, relied
upon by the counsel for the appellants,
has granted interest varying between 6%
to 9% per annum. A Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Pt. Munshi Ram
& Associates (P) Ltd. v. Delhi
Development Authority, 2010 (3) Arb.
L.R. 284 (Delhi) has held that Court has
power to reduce even the pre−suit rate of
interest in case the said rate of interest is
found to be against the public policy. In
my opinion, rate of interest of 24% per
annum i.e. 2% per month as granted by
the trial Court is clearly against the public
policy in the present economic scenario
considering the aforesaid judgments of
the Supreme Court. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case, I
am of the opinion that interest of justice
would be more than served if the
respondent is granted interest @ 7−1/2%
per annum instead of 2% per month i.e.
24% per annum.”
41. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the given
facts of the case, granting pendentelite and future interest
@ 9% p.a. would meet the ends of justice.
CS No.3891/2016 page 22 of 23
Relief
42. In view of above findings, suit is decreed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of
Rs.39,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the suit till realization. Cost is also
awarded in favour of plaintiff including fees and expenses
incurred by plaintiff for the purpose of recording of
evidence through Local Commissioner, if any.
43. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, upon filing of
deficit court fees, if any.
44. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Digitally
Court on 18.08.2025 Sunil
signed by
Sunil beniwal
Date:
beniwal 2025.08.19
14:26:06
+0530
(Sunil Beniwal)
District Judge-06(South),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No.3891/2016 page 23 of 23