1. This suit accompanied with applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC and under Order XXXVIII Rules 1 & 5 CPC came up before this Court first on 25th October, 2016 for admission when the following order was passed:

“3. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit (i) for declaration that the defendants acted falsely and deceitfully in inducing the plaintiff to accept employment of the defendant No.1 and thereby violated their legal duties to the plaintiff; (ii) for declaration that the defendants acted negligently in inducing the plaintiff to accept employment with the defendant No.1; (iii) for declaration that the employment of the defendant No.1 was wrongly terminated by the defendants; and (iv) for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- as and by way of compensation for damages and losses.

4. It is inter alia the case of the plaintiff:

(a) that the plaintiff is an experienced and highly qualified investment professional;

(b) that the defendant No.1 is a company registered in India and is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant No.3 Whitbread PLC, UK and an affiliate/associate of defendant No.2 Whitbread Hotels & Restaurants International, Dubai;

(c) that the defendant No.4 Mr. Ratnesh Verma resident of Dubai is the President and Managing Director of the defendant No.2 and Director of the defendant No.1;

(d) that the defendants No.7, 8 & 9 namely Mr. Matthew Yates, Mr. Rakesh Garg and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, all resident of New Delhi are Directors on the Board of Directors of the defendant No.1;

(e) that the defendant No.5 Mr. Aly Shariff also resident of Dubai is the Brand Officer of the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.6 Ms. Tanya Bateman also resident of Dubai is the Head of Human Resources of defendant No.2;

(f) that in or around October, 2015, HVS Executive Search, not a party to the suit, acting on behalf of the defendants approached the plaintiff for recruitment for the position of Vice-President, Development of defendant No.1 and represented that the defendant No.1 targeted to have 50 hotels across Middle East, India and Southeast Asia and the post for which the plaintiff was approached would be responsible for expansion of Premier Inn Hotels portfolio in the said region;

(g) that thereafter several meetings were held and in which also similar representations were made to the plaintiff and believing the said representations, the plaintiff agreed to join the defendant No.1 as Vice-President, Development and an appointment letter dated 19th January, 2016 was issued to the plaintiff;

(h) that however the defendants did not make the investments promised and on the contrary have decided to withdraw from India and have terminated the employment of the plaintiff.

5. Finding, that the appointment letter admittedly issued to the plaintiff provided for a probation of six months and of termination of employment by notice of three months thereafter, it has been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, as to how the suit is maintainable and how can the plaintiff be said to be entitled to damages in the sum of Rs.4,50,00,000/- as claimed and owing to which claim the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued:

(i) that the claim of the plaintiff is based on ‘duty to care’ owed by the defendants to the plaintiff and not on contract;

(ii) that the representations made by the defendants to the plaintiff to lure the plaintiff to join the employment of the defendant No.1 were deceitful and if not deceitful, negligent;

(iii) that the plaintiff has made the claim under the Law of Torts;

(iv) under the Law of Contract, the plaintiff has only sought the relief of declaration that the termination of employment of the plaintiff was illegal;

(v) on specific query, the counsel for the plaintiff reiterates that the plaintiff is not claiming any consequential relief pursuant to the declaration of the termination of employment of the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 being illegal;

(vi)