IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH PITAMBER DUTT DISTRICT JUDGE

COMMERCIAL COURT 01, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX

AT DELHI
CS(COMM) 206/24

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S LABOURNET SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. … PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S SGTB ELECTRO PVT. LTD. …DEFENDANT
INDEX
[Link]. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. LIST OF WITNESSES
2. EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SH.
ARUN KUMAR PANDEY

DELHI
12.12.2024
UTKARSH BHARGAVA
(ADVOCATE)
E-27 HAUZ KHAS
NEW DELHI-110016
utkarshbhargavaindia@[Link]
9910572261
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH PITAMBER DUTT DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT 01, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX
AT DELHI
CS(COMM) 206/24

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S LABOURNET SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. … PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S SGTB ELECTRO PVT. LTD. …DEFENDANT

LIST OF WITNESSES
1. MR. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY
2. MR. INDERJEET SINGH
3. ANY OTHER WITNESS WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON’BLE
COURT

DELHI
12.12.2024
UTKARSH BHARGAVA
(ADVOCATE)
E-27 HAUZ KHAS
NEW DELHI-110016
utkarshbhargavaindia@[Link]
9910572261
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH PITAMBER DUTT DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT 01, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX
AT DELHI
CS(COMM) 206/24

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S LABOURNET SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. … PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
M/S SGTB ELECTRO PVT. LTD. …DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, S/O MR. SANTOSH KUMAR
PANDEY ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O 2TH26 VIGYAN NAGAR, INDRAPUR,
KOTA RAJASTHAN – 324005 I, the abovenamed deponent, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. I say that I am the Authorized Representative of the Defendant authorized

vide the Board of Resolution dated 7.09.2024, who is aware and well

conversant with the facts and circumstances between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant and as such is competent to institute the present evidence by way

of affidavit. The Board of resolution dated 7.06.2024 is exhibited hereto as

Ex DW1/1, the certificate of incorporation of the defendant is exhibited

hereto as Ex DW1/2, the memorandum of association of the defendant is

 exhibited hereto as Ex DW1/3, the articles of association of the defendant is

exhibited hereto as Ex DW1/4.

2. I say that the suit, as filed, is not maintainable inasmuch as no cause of action

has arisen in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant warranting the

filing of the present suit. It is submitted that the present suit, as filed, is a

gross abuse and misuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary costs. It is submitted that the Plaintiff by way of clever drafting

has tried to create an illusion of existence of cause of action where actually

there exists none. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary costs on this ground alone.

3. I say that the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for lack of cause of action inasmuch

as on one hand the Plaintiff signs the agreement dated 1/06/2023 with the

Defendant to be made operational prospectively and on the other hand raises

the invoice based on ostensible services provided retrospectively, however

it is pertinent to mention here that the agreement fails to mention that it

would be applicable all on any retrospective services if at all provided by

the Plaintiff to the Defendant or any other retrospective services as availed

by the Defendant to which the Plaintiff would be liable to. Hence, the present

suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs on this ground alone.

4. I say that suit of the Plaintiff merits outright dismissal in as much as the

Hon’ble court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the present controversy at hand

as may be noted qua the agreement clause no. 16 with the heading of

“Governing law and Arbitration” which mentions as the contents produced

here and below-

“Both the parties agree that they will abide by the terms and conditions set

out in this agreement and if there is any breach or violation of the terms and

conditions of this agreement, it will be settled by Arbitration in accordance

with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of India as

in force or as amended from time to time. The Courts of Bangalore shall have

exclusive and sole jurisdiction over any disputes, differences or questions

arising out or in connection with or relation to the terms of this agreement.

The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted and recorded in English by a

single arbitrator mutually appointed by both the parties in accordance with

the said rules. The decision of such arbitrator shall be written, recent, final,

binding and conclusive on the parties and judgment thereon may be entered

in any court having jurisdiction over the parties and the said subject matter

here of arbitration expenses shall be shared equally between the parties.”

The contents as mentioned supra have been duly agreed between the parties

and further in the clause no. 17 it is further agreed as follows-

 “That no changes, amendments, modifications or waiver of any of the terms

and conditions hereof shall be valid, unless reduced to writing and signed by

duly authorized representatives of both parties hereto.”

5. I say that it is further submitted that the Plaintiff had agreed to the Defendant

wishing to avail the services of the Plaintiff on a non exclusive basis, for

supply of staff in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of

the agreement dated 1/06/2023 as per which the Plaintiff was supposed to

provide consultancy services to the Defendant of which the charges of

8.33% of the value were to be levied, it is pertinent to mention here that the

consultancy was never provided but the charge has been levied in the invoice

dated 12/6/2023 which in itself is contrary to the agreement dated 1/06/2023,

the agreement was supposed to come into force from 1 st June 2023 and

remain applicable and effective for a period of two years that is till 31 st May

2025 until and unless terminated by either of the party, it was further agreed

that if any candidate has been already referred by a third party vendor in

such an event the Plaintiff charges will be applicable only if it coordinates

the interview and other proceedings of such candidate with the customer that

is the Defendant.
The plaint fails to disclose upon the execution of the agreement for the

recruitment of any contract staff or candidature as provided by the Plaintiff to

the Defendant, as there was no candidate ever that was referred by the Plaintiff

or hired on the reference made by the Plaintiff.

It was further agreed acknowledged by the Plaintiff that the contract staff

would be under a contract of service for a fixed duration with the Plaintiff and

shall not be employee of the Defendant, perhaps the Plaintiff failed to contract

with any of the staff provided to the Defendant, hence no contract staff under

a contract with the Plaintiff was ever provided to the Defendant as a

manpower.

It is further submitted that the Plaintiff as per clause no. 8 had agreed to

observe and comply with all provisions applicable of the requirement of laws,

rules, regulations including the Contractor Labour Act 1970 The Employees

State Insurance Act 1948, The Payment of Wages Act 1936, The Minimum

Wages Act 1948 and the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, Provident Fund and

miscellaneous provisions but has failed to comply them till date and the same

is not linked with the payment timing of the Defendant, it is further pertinent
 to mention here that the Plaintiff never provided any proof of compliance with

all or any statutory regulations which the Defendant requested from time to

time.

It shall not be out of place to mention here that the Defendant has always

abided by the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement dated 1/06/2023

but the Plaintiff in contravention to clause no. 15 of the agreement dated

1/06/2023 have disclosed material confidential information and breached

terms of agreement and further have misrepresented and given false

warranties and have concealed with the Defendant of which the Plaintiff be

held liable to the damages caused to the Defendant.

6. I say that the suit of the Plaintiff merits outright dismissal inasmuch as the

Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has

concealed material facts from this Hon’ble Court. The Plaintiff has painted

a false picture before this Hon’ble Court and made fraudulent and

misleading pleadings in the Plaint and also concealed material documents

which in power and possession of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being guilty of

suppression veri and suggesti falsi, the suit merits dismissal on this ground
 alone. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs

on this ground alone.

7. I say that the allegations leveled by the Plaintiff in the suit are its own web

of imaginations which are not true at all and do not even qualify to be a fact.

8. I say that the perusal of the record reveals that the captioned suit, as filed,

is replete with false, frivolous and misconceived allegations and the Plaintiff

is also guilty of gross concealment of the material facts. Therefore, in order

to enable this Hon'ble Court for the complete and just adjudication of the

captioned suit, it is necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court the

true and complete facts of the case.

9. I say that the factual matrix as has transpired leading to the filing of the

present written statement is as follows:

a. That a representative of the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 25.05.2023

met in Connaught Place office located at G-36, 1st Floor, New Delhi

110001 and conditions verbally were set.

b. That vide email dated 29.05.2023 draft agreement was shared by the

Plaintiff. E MAIL DATED 29.05.2023 is exhibited hereto as Ex

DW1/4.

c. That on 30.05.2023 the agreement was approved by the Defendant.

 d. That on 31.05.2023 compliance requested from the Defendant was duly

complied by the Defendant and the final agreement was sent via email.

E MAIL DATED 31.05.2023 is exhibited hereto as Ex DW1/5.

e. That on 02.06.2023 the signed copy was shared by the Plaintiff

allegedly signed at Bangalore and sent back by email by Defendant

signed on print out of scanned copy. E MAIL DATED 02.06.2023 is

exhibited hereto as Ex DW1/6.

f. That on 05.06.2023 salary breakup sheet with KYC was shared by the

Defendant, same was confirmed and further correspondence was done.

E MAIL DATED 05.06.2023(1) is exhibited hereto as Ex DW1/7, E

MAIL DATED 05.06.2023(2) I is exhibited hereto as Ex DW1/8.

g. The security cheque on 7/6/2023 was couriered to the Plaintiff at their

office at Tilak Nagar, 1/27, 2nd Floor, Office No. 201 mall road New

Delhi 110018.

h. The Defendant made several follow ups to the Plaintiff for compliance

of the agreement dated 1.06.2023.

i. 30.06.2023 the security cheque was misused.

In light of the aforesaid factual position, the present suit is liable to be dismissed

with exemplary costs.

10.I say that Thus, the Cheque issued was a security cheque of Rs. 13,78,900/-

(Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Only) as a

post-dated cheque and the Defendant never consented the same be presented

for clearance, and despite this the Plaintiff presented the cheque number

852092 with an ill intention of causing wrongful gain to the Plaintiff himself

and a wrongful loss to the Defendant, it would further not be out of place to

mention that the Defendant holds no liability against the said cheque and the

same is denied.

It is further submitted that the invoice dated 12/06/2023 mentions the amount

to be Rs. 12,73,529/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Five

Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) which is not a match with the cheque number

852092, hence prima facie, it is evident that the said cheque could not have

been issued against the liability that is ostensibly set out vide the invoice dated

12/6/2023, but definitely seems to be a tactic set by the Plaintiff to make the

Defendant cough up wrongfully.

11.I say that the present suit seeking recovery of the alleged invoiced dues of

the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the Defendant has no due

amount to be paid to the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the invoice dated

12.06.2023 so -placed on record by the Plaintiff are nothing but misleading

 document not supported by any submissions from the part of the Defendant

in regard to the said invoice.

The invoice dated 12/6/2023 misleads by mentioning the salary of Rs.

944317/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Forty Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventeen

Only) without mentioning the calculation and the payment proofs along with

the UTR numbers it further mentions an EPF of Rs. 48750/- (Rupees Forty

Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Only) which till date has never been

credited despite the Defendant for compliance on 28.06.2023 vide UTR No.

KARBN12317767510 transferred Rs. 100000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), it

further mentions an insurance of Rs. 6250/- (Rupees Six Thousand Two

Hundred Fifty Only) of which no document has ever been provided as it is

frivolously mentioned and further mentions a service charge of Rs. 79,945/-

(Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Five Only) which is

miscalculated and in the last it mentions an IGST of Rs. 194267/- (One Lakh

Ninety Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven Only) which has never been

credited to the GST account, hence the invoice is frivolously raised intended

to cause a wrongful gain to the Plaintiff and a wrongful loss to the Defendant.

That without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is stated that the prayers made by

the Plaintiff for grant of pendente lite and future interest on the amount of Rs.

1378900/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred

 Only) is misconceived and baseless. It is submitted that the no basis

whatsoever for seeking 12% interest has either been pleaded nor any

document has been placed on record to show that the Defendant is obligated

to pay interest of 12%, if any. The Plaintiff has come up with an imaginary

and baseless figure of 12% on alleged dues. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any

interest on any account whatsoever.

12.I say that without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is stated that the prayers made

by the Plaintiff for grant of costs of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff

company is misconceived and baseless. It is submitted that the no basis

whatsoever for seeking the costs of the present suit has either been pleaded

nor any document has been placed on record to show that the Defendant is

obligated to pay the costs, if any. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any costs on

any account whatsoever.

13.I say that on account of presenting frivolous and fabricated documents to

prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant reserves its right to initiate

appropriate legal proceedings and claims against the Plaintiff.

14.I say that it is denied that the primary business of the Plaintiff is supplying

manpower to other business concerns and providing workforce solutions for

want of knowledge.
15.I say that it was the plaintiff who had approached the defendant in order to

gain business for supplying manpower and consultancy to the defendant

however it is pertinent to mention here that unfortunately the Plaintiff could

never have commenced the supply of the required manpower to the

Defendant company and was unable to fulfill the staffing needs as per the

agreed terms, it was the Plaintiff who has always violated the agreed terms

as set out in the agreement dated 1/06/2023 and the Defendant through his

sources came to know that this is a general practice of the Plaintiff and was

further never interested in making a deal with the Plaintiff, till date the

compliances that were agreed to be performed by the Plaintiff have never

been performed leaving the Defendant rendered to damages and harassment

because of the deficiency in the compliances being carried out by the

Plaintiff.

16.I say that the agreement was signed on 2/06/2023 in a prospective manner

and the invoice raised by the Plaintiff frivolously and retrospectively to

which the Defendant holds no liability, the Plaintiff failed to supply the

requisite manpower and is prima facie evident as there is no contract

between the manpower as alleged to be supplied and the Plaintiff, thus the

Plaintiff never fulfilled its end of the agreement by providing the necessary

workforce adhering to the specified requirements and timelines given by the

 Defendant and the Plaintiff raised the voice dated 12/6/2023 frivolously

without any corresponding manpower being supplied.

17.I say that the Defendant in a good gesture in order to make the Plaintiff fulfill

the obligation of the compliances which are mostly statutory in nature

advanced a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on

28/06/2023 as admitted in the statement of account of the Plaintiff himself

but till date no compliance has been fulfilled not even partly fulfilled by the

Plaintiff which in itself renders the invoice to be useless and frivolous for

which the Plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted under relevant laws of the GST

Act and other statutory acts.

18.I say that the cheque bearing number 852092 dated 25/06/2023 for an

amount of Rs. 1378900/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand

Nine Hundred Only) drawn on Deutsche Bank Gurugram Haryana was

issued as a security cheque at the time of signing of the agreement dated

2/06/2023 on 07/06/2023 to which the Plaintiff never abided and frivolously

raised an invoice dated 12/06/2023, and the cheque was not intended to settle

the financial liabilities that the Defendant had incurred towards the Plaintiff

for the manpower supplied as there was no manpower ever supplied and as

a result of the inaction there arose no financial liability ever on the front of

the Defendant due to the Plaintiff.

19.I say that the non-clearance of the said cheque never hindered the Plaintiff

from receiving the owed funds as no funds stand to be paid, it shall not be

out of place to mention here that the Plaintiff does not owe the Defendant as

alleged since the agreement dated 1/06/2023 stands unperformed of which

the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on many occasions no employees have

been hired on contractual basis from the Plaintiff as alleged, the Plaintiff

failed to contract with the employees of the Defendant since there were no

employees contracted by the Plaintiff to work for the Defendant as alleged.

20.I say that the Defendant was under an impression that the Plaintiff has

fulfilled the compliances and performed his duties but later on the Defendant

came to know that no manpower has ever been supplied by the Plaintiff, no

consultancy was ever availed to by the Defendant of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant was under an impression that the invoice dated 12/6/2023 was a

genuine one it was only after the directors performed their due diligence they

found out the ill intentions of the Plaintiff and how they were being saved

by the mismatch in signatures that had occurred coincidentally and

unintentionally.

21.I say that the Plaintiff breached the trust of the Defendant as the Plaintiff

raised a frivolous invoice without any basis and presented the security

cheque without the consent of the Defendant, which in itself is an offence

 and the allegation that the conduct of the Defendant is against fair trade and

business practices on part of the Plaintiff is not only reprehensible but

condemnable it is denied that the Plaintiff ever took diligent efforts to

resolve the issue amicably and that the behaviour of the Defendant is

uncooperative, had the behaviour of the Defendant be uncooperative the

Defendant would have never issued a security cheque in the first place.

22.I say that there is no overdue principal amount of Rs. 1378900/- (Rupees

Thirteen Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Only) on part of the

Defendant due to the Plaintiff, as even the invoice dated 12/06/2023 does

not mention it to be the amount due and payable to the Plaintiff, which in

itself is devoid of merits and devoid of the calculation of the salary so

provided of the employees of the Defendants as the PF amounts and the other

statutory compliances stand deficient and as alleged that the Plaintiff

provided the Defendant with the manpower supplied is vehemently denied

as the Plaintiff never provided any contractual staff to the Defendant.

23.I say that in the first place the Defendant does not have the payment as

alleged to be due to the Plaintiff since the invoice is frivolously raised and

the Plaintiff has misused the security cheque as provided by the Defendant

to the Plaintiff and is further misusing it as an evidence in the captioned

matter further the Plaintiff fails to show how the interest is calculated at the
 rate of 12% per annum as it is against the law and general practices and the

interest of 12% per annum to which the Plaintiff arrives after living in his

own web of imaginations .

24.I say that the criminal intention is indicated to the action of the Plaintiff and

not that of the Defendant as the actions of the Plaintiff are that of deceit and

further causing wrongful gain to the Plaintiff and wrongful loss to the

Defendant, there is no payment due for the Plaintiff by the Defendant which

is prima facie evident from the invoice so raised by the Plaintiff himself and

the security cheque so issued by the Defendant and the agreement which is

operational prospectively and not retrospectively.

25.I say that it is the Plaintiff only who has deceitfully with an intent to cause

a wrongful gain to the Plaintiff himself and a wrongful loss to the Defendant,

thus breaching the trust presented the security cheque and frivolously raised

the invoice dated 12/06/2023 to which the said security cheque has no

connection whatsoever as is prima facie evident on its bare perusal, hence in

totality depicting the reprehensive and condemnable attitude of the Plaintiff

himself.

26.I say that there is no outstanding principal amount of Rs. 13,78,900/-

(Rupees Thirteen lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred) due and
 payable to the Plaintiff on part of the Defendant, hence there is no cause of

action for the instant suit of the Plaintiff, thus the steps taken by the Plaintiff

to institute the instant suit are frivolous and vexatious in nature and the

Defendant had taken relevant steps to convince the Plaintiff on is wrong

standing to which the Plaintiff never paid any heed to as the Plaintiff

believed the web of his own imaginations to be true.

27.I say that the amount mentioned on the cheque dated 25/06/2023 was a

security amount and the cheque was a security cheque to which the

Defendant till date holds no liability towards the Plaintiff and the invoice

dated 12/06/2023 itself contradicts the amount as mentioned on the said

cheque and further the interest as calculated does not have any basis since

the payment as alleged by the Plaintiff is in question is being denied by the

Defendant.

28.I say that the cause of action never arose in favour of the plaintiff to institute

the present suit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this 8th day of October 2024 that the contents of present affidavit

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT