IN THE COURT OF SH.

MUNISH MARKAN, HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM RENT CONTROLLER, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS NO. 303/2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. GURPREET SINGH

..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S ESQUIRE ELECTROVISION PRIVATE LIMITED

..DEFENDANT
NDOH: 26-10-2015

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT COMPANY

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. I say that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, baseless and devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed. The Suit is not maintainable because the
plaintiff has not filed any documents which can prove that he was an
employee of the defendant company.
2. I say that the suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but gross abuse of process of
law.
3. I say that the defendant company is a registered company within a meaning
of Companies Act, 1956.
4. I say that the defendant company is regularly assessed under Income Tax
Act, Sales Tax/VAT Act, ESI and EPF Act etc. It is pertinent to mention that the
Company has regularly deposited the ESI and EPF dues for its employees
and had the plaintiff been an employee of the defendant company then EPF
and ESI dues would have been filed for plaintiff also.
5. I say that the suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but a well planned conspiracy
to extort money from the defendant company. The brief facts of case are
detailed here in under:
A. Plaintiff was working as a freelance salesman and mainly deals in Alloy
Wheels.

B. Shri Karan Hingorani and Shri Bhagwan Das Hingorani met the plaintiff
number of times in Market and plaintiff told them that he has very good
contacts and he can bring their businesses to the tizzy height within very
short span of time.
C. After the assurance of plaintiff, Shri Karan Hingorani and Shri Bhagwan
Das Hingorani introduced the plaintiff to Shri Balram Nathani, Director of
M/s Esquire Electrovision Private Limited, defendant in present suit.
D. After meeting with the defendant company, plaintiff assured the defendant
company that he would work with the defendant company as a freelance
salesman and he would sell the goods of defendant company on
commission basis and bring its business to the tizzy height within very
short span of time.
E. Plaintiff impressed the defendant company by such assurances. At that
time, father of plaintiff was seriously ill and he was admitted in hospital.
F. Plaintiff requested the defendant company to advance interest free loan of
Rs. 1,30,000/- to him and he needed some cash to meet urgency
expenses. The defendant company gave the plaintiff Rs. 65000/- in cash
and Rs. 65000/- by cheque.
G. Plaintiff also signed the cash voucher of Rs. 65000/- but unfortunately the
same was misplaced/lost by the defendant company and therefore,
defendant company could only show the cheque amount into its balance
sheet and books of accounts for the financial year ending 31-03-2012.
Original copy of the balance sheet has already been filed in the present
suit and exhibited in the evidence by PW1.
H. Plaintiff assured the defendant company that either he repaid the loan
within 6 months or got it deducted from his commission which he would
earned by selling the defendant companys products.
I. After taking the loan from defendant company, plaintiff never turned back
to defendant company and the defendant company was under the
impression that he is busy in looking after of his ill father.

J. After 2-3 months, defendant company management enquired from plaintiff

over telephonic conversation about the well being of his father and about
the repayment of loan.
K. Plaintiff always made false promises regarding repayment of loan or
commencement of selling of goods of the defendant company.
L. After expiration of 5-6 months, defendant company again enquired about
the repayment of loan but the plaintiff did not respond.
M. Defendant Company staff visited the house of plaintiff and there they got
to know that the father of plaintiff had expired and he had sold his house
and shifted to some other place.
N. Defendant Company finally sent the plaintiff a legal notice through its
counsel on 10-12-2013 but the plaintiff did not reply.
O. Defendant Company again sent the plaintiff a legal notice in January 2014
but he did not reply.
P. Defendant Company filed a suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs.
1,30,000/- against the defendant which was dismissed by the Honble
Court and one of the reasons might be mis-matching of the loan amount
with the balance sheet of the defendant company for the relevant period.
Defendant Company could not show

the cash amount as the cash

voucher had been lost/misplaced.

Q. After reading the plaint of defendant company, plaintiff came to know that
the loan amount was given in November 2011. He made a fabricated story
and took the defense that he was the employee of the defendant company
and worked for the period during the period starting from January 2012 to
December 2012.
6. I say that the plaintiff has very maliciously claimed the amount of Rs.
2,40,000/- from the defendant company without any proof or document. He
had failed to show that he ever been drawing such a big salary amount of Rs.
50,000/- per month from any company.
7. I say that the plaintiff has, in his cross examination, stated that he was
introduced by Shri Karan Hingorani to the defendant company. Shri Karan
Hingorani in his cross examination has stated that he met the plaintiff number

of times in market. Shri Karan Hingorani, in his evidential affidavit has stated
that he introduced the plaintiff to the defendant company as a freelance
salesman and the plaintiff never worked as an employee with the defendant
company. No specific suggestions were put to Shri Karan Hingorani by
plaintiff in cross examination denying these facts and therefore, it is
deemed to be admitted by the plaintiff as per the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
8. I say that Shri Bhagwan Das Hingorani, another defendant witness,
categorically stated that he introduced the plaintiff to the defendant company
as a freelance salesman and he never worked as an employee with the
defendant company and also took the loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the
defendant company which he never repaid.
9. I say that the plaintiff has stated in his cross examination that he do not file
any income tax return. It is pertinent to mention that if any person, having the
income above the income tax limit, then he or she has to file the income tax
return. It is pertinent to mention that for the assessment year 2012-2013 and
2013-2014, the income tax was exempted up to income of Rs. 1,80,000/(2012-2013) and Rs. 2,00,000/- (2013-2014) earned during the financial year.
It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has stated in his plaint in the present
case that the defendant company had paid the salary for only 6 months. The
salary for six months amounts to Rs. 3,00,000/- which is more than the
exempted income as stated above. Had the plaintiff been the

regular

employee of the defendant company he would have been issued form 16

under Income Tax Act and the TDS had also been deducted from the salary.
He would also get the EPF and ESI facilities from the defendant company.
Plaintiff is lying through teeth.
10. I say that the judgment of Honble Court in CS 27/2014 titled as Esquire
Electrovision Private Limited vs. Gurpreet Singh, has no relevance in the
present case as the facts determined by the Honble Court in that suit was
only relevant for that suit and which were determined as per the evidence led
by the parties in that suit. The defendant company was under the impression
that, after the admitting the loan amount by Shri Gurpreet Singh, nothing was

left in that suit and therefore the defendant company did not led other
evidences in that suit and this might caused the dismissal of that suit.
11. I say that the preponderance of probabilities in the present suit suggests that
the plaintiff had never worked as an employee in the defendant company and
therefore there is no occasion arises for non-payment of any salary amount.
Rather, plaintiff has to repay

the loan amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the

defendant company.
12. I say that that after considering the evidence led and cross examination of the
plaintiff witness and 3 defendant witnesses, documents exhibited in the
present suit particularly original balance sheet of the defendant company for
the financial year ending 31-03-2012 showing Rs. 65000/- as a loan amount
given to plaintiff and attested bank statement of defendant company showing
the payment made to plaintiff undoubtedly prove that the plaintiff was never
the employee of the defendant company and it is only the plaintiff who has
to pay the loan amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the defendant company.
Additional points:
There was no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff as the suit filed by the plaintiff is
based on full of lies and the present suit is totally false and frivolous.

Prayer:
Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with
exemplary costs.

Delhi
Dated: 26-10-2015

(SARVESH BHARDWAJ)
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
MOBILE NO. 9350301058