Ridhi Sethi and Another vs NIIT Ltd.

M.L. Mehta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges order dated 11.05.2012 of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ�1), South, Saket District Courts, New Delhi. A suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Order 37 CPC was decreed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge on 18.08.2011. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal u/s 96 CPC. Vide order dated 26.03.2012, the petitioners/appellants were directed to deposit the decreetal amount within 15 days. The petitioners thereafter filed an application u/s 151 CPC for recalling the said order and stay of the execution of the decree. Vide order dated 11.05.2012, which is under challenge, the request was declined, but however, further 7 days time was given to deposit the decreetal amount. These orders dated 26.03.2012 and 11.05.2012 are under challenge in the instant petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who submitted that the petitioner Ridhi Sethi was a small time employee of the respondent and there was no condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the petitioners to the respondent as towards satisfaction of service. She submitted that the agreement dated 11.08.2008 was one sided and did not stipulate any mandatory condition for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-. Having gone through the said agreement dated 11.08.2008, which was executed by the petitioner No. 2 in pursuance of the appointment of petitioner No. 1, in favour of the respondent herein, it is noted that the petitioner No. 1 had agreed to serve the respondent company for at least one year and in case of her default in serving the company for at least one year, to compensate the plaintiff as per the terms of the said agreement. In Clause 1 (c) of the agreement, it is covenanted that in case she fails to serve the respondent company before the expiry of one year from the date of joining, she will specifically pay to the respondent company a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, being the partial amount of expenses incurred by the respondent company for providing her trainings and developmental activities. Both the petitioners agreed to be jointly and severally liable for this. The learned trial court passed a decree of recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest against the petitioners on merit. The learned ADJ directed the petitioners to deposit the decreetal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest, as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal on merits.

Having regard to the entire factual matrix, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned ADJ. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.