RBEF RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Vs. ALOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for damages of Rs. 1 crore and permanent injunction. The damages have been sought on account of the alleged damage said to have been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff by the defendant's false and malicious statements, as also on account of losses allegedly caused to the plaintiff by the acts of the defendant in supplying confidential and privileged information/documents to certain parties which has resulted, according to the plaintiff, in filing of.frivolous cases against the plaintiff and also in the attaching of its accounts and orders of injunction against its properties. The relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff has been sought for restraining the defendant, his agents, accomplices, attorneys, etc. from making any oral or written statement, writing any letter, giving any interview containing any allegations against the plaintiff, its AMITY Institutions, its founder President, founder Trustee and office bearers, furnishing any information to any news channel/newspaper or to any business/education associates/collaborators of the plaintiff in India and abroad or to any person, organization and authority or publishing, disclosing or releasing any article/information, relating to the plaintiff, or its AMITY Institutions, its founder President, founder Trustee and office bearers or doing any act, which is injurious/harmful to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought an award of costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(2.) The plaint was registered as a suit on 4.8.2005. On the same day directions were given for issuance of summons to the defendant through ordinary process, as well as through Registered A.D. cover, returnable on 7.9.2005. When the matter came up on the returnable date, i.e. on 7.9.2005, it was observed by this Court that the defendant remains to be served. Although the report of service recorded by the process server was one of refusal, this Court found the same to be quite vague and one that could not be relied upon so as to hold that the defendant has been served. Accordingly, this Court by an order dated 7.9.2005, directed issuance of fresh summons and notice to be served upon the defendant on both the addresses given through ordinary process, registered A.D. post, approved courier, through e-mail and dasti also, returnable on 14.11.2005. On 14.11.2005, this Court observed that although the process issued through ordinary course has been returned unserved as the premises were found to be locked, an affidavit of service has been filed indicating that summons sent by courier has been returned with the refusal report and the defendant has been served through e-mail. In these circumstances, it was taken that the defendant had been duly served. By an order dated 23.1.2006, as the defendant did not appear despite service, the defendant was directed to be proceeded with ex parte. The plaintiff was directed to lead its ex parte evidence by filing affidavits. The plaintiff was also permitted to file documents. The matter was directed to be listed for exhibiting the same before the Joint Registrar on 13.2.2006. After the evidence affidavits were filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the documents were exhibited, the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was placed before this Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard and judgment was reserved. Mr. Nayyar, the learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff also requested that a brief synopsis be permitted to be filed. The permission was granted and the brief written synopsis was also filed.

(3.) The plaintiff (Ritnand Balved Education Foundation) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as RBEF). The plaintiff, it is alleged in the plaint, is running various educational institutions in the name and style of 'AMITY' all over India. In Paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is averred that the AMITY Institutions run and managed by the plaintiff (RBEF) have more than 35,000 students, 130 programmes and 22 campuses all over India. In paragraph 3A of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff (RBEF) was formed and is being run by very respectable, honest, dedicated, hardworking and educated persons, who have deep roots in society and who have earned a name and created a niche for themselves by the dint of their hardwork. Amongst them, Dr Ashok Kumar Chauhan is the founder President of RBEF and Mr. Arun Kumar Chauhan is its founder Trustee. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant was employed as an in-house Legal Attorney by the plaintiff (RBEF) to look after and assist in its legal matters as well as those of AKC Group of Companies, and the personal matters/cases of the Chauhans and their family members. The defendant is said to have worked with RBEF as Assistant Director between the period March 1996 till November, 1997 on a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- along with rent free accommodation at NOIDA. He is said to have represented RBEF, AKC and the Chauhans in their legal matters. It is averred in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the defendant operated from RBEF's office at E-27, Defence Colony, New Delhi and that he was entrusted with all the files and documents pertaining to the legal/Court matters and properties of RBEF, AKC Group of Companies and even the Chauhan family members and was privy to all the private and confidential information in respect of the above. It is further stated that all these files/documents/records were entrusted to the defendant by reposing great trust and confidence in him.