VIJAY KUMAR OJHA vs SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22.04.2025 + CS(OS) 362/2018 & I.A. 12133/2023 I.A. 14543/2023 I.A. 8187/2025 I.A. 8227/2025 I.A. 10047/2025 O.A. 63/2023 VIJAY KUMAR OJHA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate (through VC) with plaintiff in person versus SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aditya Nayyar, Mr. Tarang Agarwal, Ms. Aastha Bansal, Advocates % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): IA 10047/2025 (Application under Order VII Rule 10 by defendant) 1. The present application has been filed by the Defendant under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking return of the plaint on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present plaint. 2. The present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff seeking a declaration that his termination by the Defendant Company is illegal and bad in law, inter-alia the Plaintiff seeks a decree for damages to the tune of Rs. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT CS(OS) 362/2018 Page 1 of 10 PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:27.04.2025 21:03:00 5,00,00,000/- (Five Crores) on account of loss of reputation, pecuniary loss, and consequential damages arising out of the alleged wrongful termination. 2.1. As per the plaint the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company on 01.10.2003 as an Engineer (Service Dept.) under probation and was confirmed vide letter dated 31.03.2004. Thereafter, he worked with Defendant Company for over 13 years with multiple promotions. 2.2. Further it is stated that a forensic audit initiated by the Defendant Company on 10.12.2015 led to harassment and undue pressure on the Pl