SJ283-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.283 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1415 OF 2009 Husam Sadagah .. Plaintiff Versus Zoom Developers (Pvt) Ltd. .. Defendants Mr.Sharan Jagtiani with M.sRajalakshmi Mohandas and Hamed Kadiani i/b. ALMT Legal for plaintiff Mr.Shaunak Thakker with M.s.Bhavana Singh and Mrs.Omkar Savarkar i/b. Mulla & Mulla CBC for defendants CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th November 2010. P.C.: 1] The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover a sum of U.S.$ 316,6667/- as per the particulars of claim Annexure "G" to the plaint. 2] It is stated that the suit is filed as a summary suit on the basis of employment contract dated 1st February 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover monies payable towards the outstanding salary and SJ283-09 2 guaranteed bonus. 3] In the plaint, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is an ordinary resident and having his office in Saudi Arabia. He was carrying on business of a sole proprietorship firm in Saudi Arabia. Defendant is a company and has its office in India particularly in Mumbai. 4] It is stated that plaintiff was approached by the Group CEO of the defendant and they offered him an employment in the post of Chief Executive Officer for Saudi Arabia operations. It is stated that pursuant to discussions, an offer letter was issued, a copy of which is at Annexure A. Thereafter, there is employment contract which is executed at Annexure B and, thereafter, there is a separate joint venture agreement dated 1st February 2008. 5] It is stated that the claim in the present summary suit arises out of employment agreement/ contract and under the same till 2008, the plaintiff's salary was paid. Thereafter, there was delay and SJ283-09 3 subsequently the salary was not paid at all. There were several reminders and that is how the instant summary suit is filed because there was no response to the demand notice and reminders. 6] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for parties, I have perused the Annexures A, B and C to the plaint. 7] It is the argument of the defendant that these three documents must been seen and read together for, they constitute a complete contract and it is not possible to see Annexure B in isolation. However, reliance is placed by plaintiff on Annexure B and it is stated that this is a distinct contract of employment and therefore, all other documents with regard to joint operations in Saudi Arabia are of no relevance. 8] Prima facie it is not possible to agree with the plaintiff. That Annexure A states that there were certain discussions held, a three year contract with gross salary was offered with guaranteed bonus. It SJ283-09 4 is stated in this letter itself that as a result of plaintiff joining the defendant in the capacity as CEO in Saudi Arabia, the defendant would transfer the current financial advisory business held in the name of Sadagah and to offer the plaintiff's sole proprietory concern as above so also the licences to new financial services, which will be a group company of the defendant. Therefore, a arrangement was made and in furtherance of which prima facie two documents as envisaged by the contents of Annexure A, have been executed. Therefore, it will not be proper to read Annexure B as an isolated contract particularly because the plaintiff himself is carrying on sole proprietary business in Saudi Arabia. The firm which is referred to in the letter at Exh.A is the sole proprietary firm of the plaintiff himself. Thus, it was a contract to take over Saudi Arabia operations of the defendant jointly. In such circumstances, this itself constitutes a triable issue. Whether the documents can be construed in an isolated manner and have a distinct obligation as urged by Mr.Jagtiani and/or whether they are to be read together and constitute a single obligation of joint operations in Saudi Arabia as urged by Mr.Thakkar raises a triable issue. SJ283-09 5 9] Alternatively, it was argued that even if the documents are read together, as far as joint operations in Saudi Arabia is concerned, there is no breach of the obligations by the plaintiff and he has discharged them completely. Mr.Jagtiani seeks to rely upon certain letters to demonstrate this aspect. The fact that this alternate submission is canvassed and reliance has to be placed on letters would mean that plaintiff will have to lead documentary and oral evidence to prove that he has discharged all obligations. This also raises a triable issue. 10] For all these reasons, there will be unconditional leave to defend the suit. The suit is transferred to the list of commercial causes with usual directions with regard to filing of written statement, discovery and inspection. Summons for judgement is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)