Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 216
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J
HERSHEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD – Respondent
CM(M)-1699/2023
Mr. Rajiv Tyagi and Mr. Piyush Jha, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv.
The court upheld the trial court's decision allowing the summoning of the petitioner's employee as a witness, emphasizing the necessity of evidence for adjudicating the case and the importance of procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 and Order XVI - Petition against dismissal of application for recall of summons - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application to recall summons for witnesses, arguing violation of natural justice and procedural irregularities. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 19)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized the importance of fair opportunity to object to evidence and the burden of proof on the plaintiff before the defendant is compelled to produce evidence. (Paras 8, 10)
(C) Procedural Requirements - The court reiterated that Order XVI CPC allows summoning of witnesses and that the respondent's request for documents from the petitioner was valid as they were necessary to adjudicate the case. (Paras 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a subsidiary of a foreign company, terminated the respondent's employment for alleged misconduct. The respondent filed a suit for recovery and sought to summon the petitioner's employee as a witness. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application to recall the summons.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order allowing the respondent to summon the petitioner's records was upheld, affirming the necessity of the evidence for the case.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court erred in allowing the respondent to summon the petitioner's employee and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to object.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no procedural irregularity in the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the respondent's request for evidence was relevant to the case and did not infringe on the petitioner's rights.
Result: Petition dismissed.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , 1950 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) against the order dated 19.07.2023 in C.S. No. 1019/2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge-09, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) whereby application under Order XVI Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant praying for recall of the summons of witnesses for 19.07.2023 was dismissed.
2. The facts reveal that the petitioner, M/s Hershey India Private Limited is a subsidiary of M/s Hershey Company, USA, which came into existence as per the joint venture of Godrej group with Hershey Company named as Godrej Hershey Food and Beverages Limited in the year 2007. The Godrej Hershey Food and Beverages Limited had acquired Nutrine Confectionary Company Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2006 as a part of its business arrangement. The Godrej group completely exited the venture in the year 2012 and the petitioner company’s name changed to M/s Hershey India Pvt. Ltd.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27.05.2006, respondent was appointed at the post of Regional Sales Manager by Nutrine Confectionary Company Pvt. Ltd. However, his employment continued with the respondent on executing the contract of appointment dated 17.08.2007 for the post of Area Sales Manager in the petitioner company. The petitioner company terminated the employment of the respondent vide termination letter dated 02.11.2016 alleging misconduct in his dealings with the distributors of the petitioner company. During the course of employment, the petitioner company found that there were various irregularities committed by the respondent, which led to thorough investigation by the petitioner company with respect to alleged misconduct. As per, the investigation report dated 02.11.2016, the committee constituted by the petitioner company concluded that the respondent had committed serious breach of code of ethical business conduct and applicable employees regulation and such misconduct rendered him liable for termination of his employment contract.
4. Subsequent thereto, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2016 through his advocate to the petitioner company alleging his termination being illegal and seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. The notice was replied to by the petitioner company through its advocate vide reply dated 12.12.2016. In retaliation to his termination, the respondent instituted a suit bearing CS No. 1019/2017 titled as “Rajendra Prasad vs. Hershey Company and Others” on 15.03.2017 before the learned Trial Court for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,93,910/-. The petitioner company entered appearance in response to the summons sent to it and contested the suit by filing the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed issues on 03.11.2018 in the said suit. To lead evidence, the respondent filed the first list of witnesses dated 18.01.2019 before the learned Trial Court.
5. While tendering affidavit of evidence by respondent as witness on 30.01.2020, the petitioner pointed that affidavit annexed with suit was not in compliance with Order XIX CPC and certain paragraphs were not duly verified in the plaint. In response to these averments of the petitioner company, the respondent on 02.09.2021 moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the verification paragraph of the suit. The learned Trial Court by the order dated 01.09.2022 allowed the same and the amended plaint was taken on record subject to payment of cost to the petitioner company by the respondent.
Subsequently, the respondent filed the revised list of witnesses along with fresh affidavit of evidence on 03.03.2023. The respondent then moved an application for summoning of the witnesses, being the MIS Officer of the petitioner company producing the doc
