ASHOK MEHRA Vs. SIDDHARTH SHRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of I.A. No. 4087/99.

(2.) Suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) It is, inter alia, alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff were together at the Doon School, Dehradun during 1954-59 and were friends. In or about February, 1997 when defendant No. 1 met the plaintiff in Bangkok, Thailand where he was in full-time employment with Thai Baroda Industries Ltd. on a total package of about Thai Baht 70 lacs (Rs. 93.00 lacs) per annum, he (defendant No. 1) expressed his concern about single handedly managing his huge business empire. Thereafter, by the letter dated June 6, 1997 written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 invited the plaintiff to come on the Board of Directors of Siel Limited, defendant No. 2 and becoming an Ad visor thereof. By December, 1997, the defendant No. 1 insisted the plaintiff to join as the Chief Executive Officer of defendant. No. 2 company at Delhi. In response the plaintiff reminded the defendant No. 1 that his services were costly and reiterated the details of his remuneration given in writing about 7 months back in Bangkok. The plaintiff further told the defendant No. 1 that it would not be possible for him to get emoluments less than Rs. 68.00 lacs per annum and that a fixed term appointment would also be a condition precedent to joining full-time as he was nearing retirement age and was not willing to take risk with regard to assured employment till his 60th birthday in Thailand in the said company. It is further alleged that thereafter the plaintiff received a letter dated 5th December, 1997 from defendant No. 1 assuring that in the event of termination of the services of the plaintiff for any reason other than financial impropriety on his part, the defendant No. 2-company will fulfil its monetary and other related compensation to him until the date of his 60th birthday. Plaintiff was also asked to confirm the date of his final joining the defendant No. 2 at Delhi. It is stated that the plaintiff accepted the offer made in terms of the said letter and confirmed in writing by the letter dated 12th December, 1997 sent to defendants 1 and 2 by fax that he will actually join defendant No. 2 as Chief Executive Officer on 5th January, 1998. On joining, the defendant No. 2 provided to the plaintiff a house bearing No. A-218, New Friends Colony, New Delhi in addition to a Cielo car. For internal accounting, the car was got financed through defendant No. 3 but it was registered in the name of plaintiff. Instalments of the car were being paid by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3-company also provided to the plaintiff a Tata Safari vehicle which was purchased in the name of defendant No. 2 and financed by defendant No. 3. Instalments for this vehicle too were are being paid by defendant No. 2. It is further alleged that although the plaintiff had worked with defendants 1 and 2 for about three months upto April, 1998 but the break-up of emoluments had still not been drawn by defendant No. 1. Whenever the plaintiff raised the issue, defendant No. 1 replied by saying that break-up was being worked out for the benefit of the plaintiff so that he takes home the maximum amount. On 8th July, 1998 while the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were attending a Conference at Kathmandu, the plaintiff received from defendant No. la letter with remuneration break-up stating that the Board members have approved for the plaintiff a total sum of Rs. 65.00 lacs per annum. This letter did not correctly record the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, on 10th July, 1998 during personal meeting at Kathmandu, the plaintiff objected to the contents of the said letter. Alter recording his protest in writing on the said letter the plaintiff sent it back to defendant No. 1 for issuing a fresh letter regularising the remuneration. Thereafter, on 21st August, 1998 the plaintiff received from the defendants a letter regularising his appointment as Chief Executive Officer of the company effective from 5th January, 1998 also enclosing therewith the statement of details of the facilities. That statement, however, did not give the basic salary and special allowances and on plaintiff's pointing out that inaccuracy, the defendant No. 1 issued a fresh statement giving amongst others the basic salary and the special allowances on 9th September, 1998.