$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 270/2023 & I.A. 8592/2023, I.A. 8684/2024 MITHUN DAS .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Sugandha Anand and Mr.

Surinder Anand, Advs.

versus ARVIND PANI & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma and Ms.

Mansi, Advs for Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.

Ms. Rupali Samuel, Ms. Aditi Soni, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026 I.A. 8683/2024

1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], has been filed on behalf of the Defendants No.1 to 5 for rejection of the Plaint.

2. The present Suit is one for damages, injunction, and compensation for alleged defamation and malicious prosecution.

3. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present Suit are as under:

a. It is stated that the Plaintiff is a Mechanical Engineer, who joined the Defendant No.5/Company on 23.10.2017 as the Vice-President (Government Relations). The Defendants No.1 to 4 are the key position holders in Defendant No.5/Company.

b. In 2019, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Chief Revenue Officer with effect from 01.04.2019, where he handled end-to-end business responsibilities including government and enterprise sales, partnerships, marketing, pre-sales, and delivery functions, while managing a large team. During his tenure, the Plaintiff received performance incentives and favorable ratings for multiple financial years, including 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.5/Company’s turnover increased substantially during his tenure, and he was instrumental in securing large government orders, including contracts worth several crores from public sector bodies.

c. As per the Plaint, disputes arose on 18.03.2022 when the Plaintiff was served with a Show Cause Notice of the even date by Defendant No.3, alleging that the Plaintiff failed to disclose that his wife was a director in M/s Oxygen Associates Pvt. Ltd. [“OAPL”], a recruitment vendor associated with the Defendant No.5/Company. It is stated that the said Show Cause Notice alleged that a majority of sales hires since 2019 were routed through OAPL and the Plaintiff was the final authority in those hirings, thereby creating a clear conflict of interest.

d. A reply to the said Show Cause Notice dated 18.03.2022 was given by the Plaintiff on the same day, stating that the Defendant No.5/Company was in fact informed earlier about his wife’s association with OAPL and his role was limited to referring the vendor, without any involvement in commercial negotiations or hiring decisions.

e. This matter was thereafter referred to an investigation following a whistleblowing complaint. The investigation took place between March and June 2022, after which the Plaintiff was allegedly asked to resign by Defendant No.1 in June 2022.

f. The Plaintiff claims that he was compelled to resign on

14.06.2022 under pressure and was thereafter relieved from service of the Defendant No. 5/Company towards the end of June 2022.

g. Despite his resignation, the Plaintiff states that he continued to assist the Defendant No. 5/Company in its meetings and projects through July and August 2022. However, in October 2022, in an internal company meeting and through subsequent emails, the Defendants herein informed employees of the Defendant No.5/Company that the Plaintiff had been relieved from services due to a related-party transaction, which the Plaintiff claims to be defamatory statement and wholly unsupported by evidence.

h. On 12.11.2022, an FIR bearing No. 0265/2022 was registered at P.S. Bellanduru, Bengaluru against the Plaintiff and others under Sections 34, 120B, 201, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is stated that the said FIR contained allegations not only regarding the OAPL issue, but also accusations to the effect that the Plaintiff colluded with the family of a deceased employee, Ashish Gupta, to falsely claim financial benefits