1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.2605 OF 1996 Datamatics Limited ..Plaintiff. Vs. Milan C. Sheth and another ..Defendants. .... Ms. Chhaya Shah for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 14th January, 2008. P.C. : 1. The suit has been instituted for enforcing a negative covenant in a service contract and for consequential reliefs. The Plaintiff has prayed for damages in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in Clause 11 of the agreement dated 28th September, 1993. 2. No written statement has been filed by the First Defendant. The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of its witness Shri Tirath Singh Safra, General Manager (Administration). There has been no cross examination. The Second Defendant has filed a written statement. The case of 2 the Plaintiff is that it agreed to appoint the First Defendant as a Trainee Programmer in accordance with a letter of engagement dated 1st March, 1994 and an agreement dated 7th October, 1993. Under the terms of the agreement, it was provided that the First Defendant will on successful completion of training serve the Plaintiff for a minimum period of four years. In the event that the First Defendant failed to do so, Clause 11 provided for the payment of liquidated damages. The damages payable after the expiry of two years and upto three years from the date of commencement of training were Rs.4 lacs. The Plaintiff had obtained an assignment from Singapore Airlines for the maintenance and development of computer software including software application. The First Defendant was appointed as a Trainee Programmer and was provided training in India for two months and training at Singapore for ten months. In paragraph 7 of the examination-in – chief it has been stated that the First Defendant was provided training in all aspects of transaction processing facility. On return to India, the First Defendant commenced his employment on 1st December, 1994. The First Defendant did not resume duty after 30th August, 1995 and is stated to have absconded. Service of an advocate's notice dated 17th October, 1995 was refused. According to the 3 Plaintiff, the Defendant was liable to work until 7th October, 1998. In support of the claim for damages, it has been stated in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief that the Plaintiff expends an amount of Rs.6,29,947/- on every training. The case of the Plaintiff has gone uncontroverted. 3. At this stage since the period for which the First Defendant was liable to be engaged has expired, there is no question of any relief being granted in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c ). The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (d) with the modification that the Plaintiff would be entitled to interest on the sum of Rs.4 lacs from the date of the suit until payment and/or realization at the rate of 12% per annum. However, it is clarified that this decree shall operate only as against the First Defendant and the suit shall proceed as against the Second Defendant.