CS(OS) 251/2020 Page 1 of 10

$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 6^th July, 2022.

+

CS(OS) 251/2020

HEMA GUSAIN

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava and Mr.

Chandan Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus

INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS. ..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Meet Malhotra, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Ravi S.S. Chauhan, Ms.

Pallak Singh, Ms. Chaistha Channa

and Ms. Manvi Rastogi, Advocates

for D-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

I.A. 10179/2021 (of the defendant no.1 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)

1.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

seeking rejection of the plaint on the following grounds:

i.

The plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

ii.

The suit is barred by law.

2.

Notice in the present application was issued on 13^th August, 2021.

Pursuant to the said notice, a reply was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 11^th

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002507

CS(OS) 251/2020 Page 2 of 10

September, 2021. Thereafter, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the

defendant no.1 on 21^st October, 2021.

3.

In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, it has been pleaded that:

i.

The plaintiff had joined the defendant no.1 on 1^st January, 1995 as a

Personal Assistant.

ii.

On 30^th April, 2017, the plaintiff was appointed as the Secretary

(Designate) on the basis of selection done by the Search Committee

appointed by the defendant no.1.

iii.

On 23^rd June, 2017, the term of the previous President of the

defendant no.1 got over and the defendant no.2 was appointed as the

next President.

iv.

The defendant no.2 had personal animosity against the plaintiff.

v.

On 29^th July, 2017, an Office Order was issued by the defendant no.1

that appointment of the plaintiff as Secretary be kept in abeyance.

vi.

On 8^th August, 2017, the plaintiff received another notice from the

defendant no.1 stating that the salary and perks of the plaintiff would

be reversed and the excess amount paid to the plaintiff would be

recovered.

vii.

A Civil Suit No.1040/2017 was filed by the plaintiff before the Patiala

House Courts, impugning the office order dated 29^th July, 2017.

viii.

On 9^th October, 2017, the plaintiff issued a resignation letter, which

was accepted by the defendant no.1 on 10^th October, 2017.

ix.

On 11^th October, 2017, the aforesaid suit was withdrawn by the

plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the aforesaid

resignation was not voluntary and was forced upon the plaintiff by the

defendants and therefore, amounts to illegal termination

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002507

CS(OS) 251/2020 Page 3 of 10

4.

Accordingly, the present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff

seeking the following reliefs:

5.

Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1, in support

of the present application, has made the following submissions:

i.

The plaintiff had voluntarily resigned from her service. There is

nothing to suggest that the plaintiff was forced to resign.

ii.

The plaintiff had withdrawn the first suit without seeking liberty

to file a fresh suit. Therefore, the fresh suit, which is based on

substantially the same pleadings, is barred.

iii.Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was wrongfully

terminated, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

SS ShettyV. Bharat Nidhi Ltd, AIR 1958 SC 12,followed by