2014 (4) TMI 1312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t at New Delhi with a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,30,000/- per month and joined w.e.f. 7th January, 2008; (ii) that the defendant was however in a financial mess and unable to pay the salaries and owing whereto the plaintiff had no option but to resign from the employment of the defendant vide letter dated 13th February, 2012 which was accepted by the defendant in June, 2012 and the plaintiff was given No Objection Certificate; (iii) that the plaintiff has not been paid his salary for the months of December, 2011 to 14th February, 2012 i.e. for a period of two and a half months; (iv) that a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- is due to the plaintiff towards salary from December, 2011 to 14th February, 2012 at the rate of gross salary of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at Mumbai or at any other place designated by the Chief Operating Officer of the defendant; (d) that even otherwise, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction as the Letter of Appointment of the plaintiff provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai; (e) that the plaintiff has committed breach of Clause 15.4 of the Letter of Appointment and has not completed the Commitment Period of five years and not served the notice period; (f) that the plaintiff having not completed the Commitment Period of five years could not have terminated the Agreement without paying to the defendant such amounts as were due to the defendant; (g) that the plaintiff has failed to pay liquidated damages due to the defendant; (h) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that in view thereof the suit therefor cannot be under Order 37 of the CPC and if the plaintiff insists upon recovery of the same, the suit for the entire amount shall have to be treated as an ordinary suit, the counsel for the plaintiff gives up the relief for recovery of amount on account of Leave Encashment. 7. The counsel for the plaintiff similarly, realizing that as per the terms of appointment, the gratuity could accrue to the plaintiff only after completing service for five years and which the plaintiff admittedly did not complete, gives up the claim for gratuity also. 8. I may however notice that though the defendant has taken the ground, of the plaintiff being committed to serve the defendant for five years, but no provision the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., which otherwise have no jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the matter. The reliance by the counsel for the defendant on Swastik Gases Private Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2013) 9 SCC 32 in this regard is thus of no avail. 11. As far as the plea of arbitrability is concerned, defendant has not filed any application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the defendant, the counsel for the defendant invites attention to G. Rajarajan Vs. AIG Consumer Financial Services (India) Ltd. (2012) 5 CTC 313 of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court, to contend that a plea to the said effect in the leave to defend application suffices. 12. I have considered the aforesaid ....