IN THE COURT OF SH.

SANJEEV AGGARWAL; JSCC; DELHI

Suit no.

In the matter of:

M/S True Link Finance ………………………………. Plaintiff

Vs.

Hariom and Ano. ……………………………..Defendants

D.O.H. –

Application U/S 5 Limitation Act Read with Order 37 Rule 3(7) Read with
Sec.151 C.P.C. on behalf of Defendants

Most Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the defendants had filed their appearance in time in the above
mentioned suit and further were served with summons for judgment by this
Hon’ble Court on dated 17.08.2007 and were thereby required to apply for
leave to defend in this above mentioned suit within ten days of service
thereto as per the provisions of Order XXXVII of C.P.C.
2. That the defendant no. 2 handed over his summons of Judgment to the
defendant no.1 on 18.08.2007 for further action and filing application for
leave to defend through his counsel in the above suit.
3. That the defendant no.1 had been suffering from illness(medical certificate
attached) from 15.08.2007 to 01.09.2007 and had been rendered unable by
the illness to put the abovementioned application in the present suit and
consult his counsel for further course of action.
4. That the failure of the defendants to apply for leave to defend in the present
suit within ten days of service of summons for judgement was due to this
reason only and none other.

Prayer:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay in filing the leave to
defend by the defendants may be condoned and the defendants be allowed to
put an application for leave to defend the above mentioned suit in the interest of
justice.

Delhi
Dated:
Applicant/Defendant no.1
(Himself and on behalf of Defendant no.2)
Through
Satish .K. Dabas

IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL; JSCC; DELHI

Suit no.
In the matter of:

M/S True Link Finance ………………………………. Plaintiff

Vs.

Hariom and Ano. ……………………………..Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. Hariom S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh R/o V. & PO. Bamnoli, N.Delhi
I, the above named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the defendant no.1 in the above noted suit and as such being well
conversant with the facts of the case, am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the defendant no.1 had been suffering from illness (medical certificate
attached) from 15.08.2007 to 01.09.2007 and thus could not put the
application for leave to defend in the above mentioned suit within ten days of
service of summons for judgement.

3. That the accompanying application U/S 5 Limitation Act Read with Order
XXXVII Rule 3(7) Read with Sec.151 C.P.C. on has been drafted by my
counsel on my instructions. The contents of the same have been read over
and explained to me in vernacular and the facts stated therein are true and
correct to my knowledge and are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Deponent

VERIFICATION:
Verified on this day of Oct., 2007 that the contents of paras 1
to 3 of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part
thereof is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL; JSCC; DELHI
Suit no.
In the matter of:

M/S True Link Finance ………………………………. Plaintiff

Vs.

Hariom and Ano. ……………………………..Defendants

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER 37

RULE 3(5) READ WITH SEC.151 C. P.C. FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND THE
SUIT

Most Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the defendants had filed their appearance in time in the above
mentioned suit and further were served with summons for judgment by this
Hon’ble Court on dated 17.08.2007.

2. That the defendants/applicants crave leave to defend the said recovery suit
on the grounds and reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and are not
repeated herein for the sake of brevity

Prayer:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed, that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
grant an unconditional leave to defend the above suit.
Any other order deemed fit and proper in the case may also be passed in favour
of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant/Defendant no.1
(Himself and on behalf of Defendant no.2)
Through
Satish .K. Dabas
Counsel
 IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL; JSCC; DELHI
Civil Suit no.

In the matter of:

M/S True Link Finance ………………………………. Plaintiff

Vs.

Hariom and Ano. ……………………………..Defendants

Affidavit of Defendant no.1 Sh. Hariom S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh R/o Vill. and

PO.-Bamnoli, New Delhi for Evidence

I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the defendant no.1 in the above noted suit and being so am well
conversant with the facts of the present case and as such am competent to
depose in the matter.

2. That the defendants have very good prima facie defence to the suit and
triable issues are existing there from.

3. That the defendant no.1 had purchased two Air Conditioners from Raj
Electronics, R.K.Puram, N.Delhi on 16.04.2003 after entering an hire
purchase agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 stood guarantee
for defendant no.1 in the said finance transaction.

4. That the finance amount of Rs.30,000 was to be paid in 12 monthly

instalments of Rs.3000 along with Rs.6,000 as finance charges and the
plaintiff collected 12 post dated cheques of Rs.3,000 each of The Co-
operative Bank, Bijwasan Branch, New Delhi from the defendant no.1 for
the said payment of the EMI’s.
5. That the defendant no.1 had made the 11 monthly payments of Rs.3000 each
on time by cheques of The Co-operative Bank, Bijwasan Branch, New Delhi
starting from 20.05.2003 to 20.03.2004 but due to financial constrains of the
defendant no.1, the last cheque of the month of April, 2004 had got bounced
and the last payment/EMI of Rs.3000 could not be made.

6. That after the said bouncing of cheque of the defendant no.1 in the month of
April 2004, the plaintiff informed the defendant no.1 about the said fact and
asked the defendant no.1 to pay in cash Rs.3000 reflecting the amount of the
said bounced cheque for full and final settlement of the hire purchase
agreement. The plaintiff further told the defendant no.1 that a company
personal shall visit his house to collect the installment and hand him over the
bounced cheque in return of the payment.

7. That the plaintiff then sent one person from its office to the house of the
defendant no.1 in the 1st week of May 2004 who collected Rs.3000 in cash
from the defendant no.1 and handed him over the bounced cheque of his
bank and further told him that now a full and final settlement had been made
and the plaintiff company shall be posting to him the acknowledgement of
the full and final settlement of the agreement.

8. That after waiting for the whole month of May 2004, the defendant no.1
visited the plaintiff in the first week of June 2004 to collect the final
settlement acknowledgement of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 was told by
the defendant no.1 that he had to pay Rs.1000 more as late payment penalty
of the bounced cheque/EMI in order to collect the same letter of
confirmation of settled hire purchase agreement. The defendant could not
bear this blackmailing attitude of the plaintiff and returned disappointed.

9. That the plaintiff had resorted to tactics of blackmailing with the defendant
no.1 after receiving the full payment and thereby back traded from its
promise of giving final settlement confirmation letter/NOC to the defendant
no.1.

10.That the contents mentioned herein have been drafted by my counsel upon
 my instructions which are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

Deponent

Verification:

Verified at Delhi on this day of Oct. 2007 that the contents of

those of paras no.1 to 10 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and nothing has been concealed therein.

Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K.YADAV; CIVIL JUDGE; GURGAON
Suit no.

In the matter of:

M/S CVENT INDIA PVT. LTD. ………………………………. Plaintiff

Vs.

SH.SUMIT GROVER ……………………………..Defendant

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER 37 RULE

3(5) READ WITH SEC.151 C. P.C. FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND THE SUIT

Most Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the defendant had filed his appearance in time in the above mentioned
suit and further was served with summons for judgment by this Hon’ble
Court on dated _________.

2. That the defendant crave leave to defend the said recovery suit on the
grounds and reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and are not
repeated herein for the sake of brevity

Prayer:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed, that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
grant an unconditional leave to defend the above suit.
Any other order deemed fit and proper in the case may also be passed in favour
of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant/Defendant

Through
Satish .K. Dabas
Counsel
 IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K.YADAV; CIVIL JUDGE; GURGAON
Civil Suit no.

In the matter of:

M/S CVENT INDIA PVT. LTD. ………………………………. Plaintiff

Vs.

SH. SUMIT GROVER ……………………………..Defendant

Affidavit of Defendant Sh. Sumit Grover S/o Sh. S.K.Grover R/o R-8, Sec.12,

Noida(U.P.)

I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the defendant in the above noted suit and being so am well
conversant with the facts of the present case and as such am competent to
depose in the matter.

2. That the defendant has a very good prima facie defence to the suit and triable
issues exist there from.

3. That the defendant is a qualified chartered accountant, who went mandatory

three years on the job training under ICAI guidelines and acquired all the
necessary professional skills during the said training.

4. That the defendant was selected by one of the world’s best consultancy
organization as a consultant and was promoted to a higher position within six
months in recognition of his skills and efficiency.

5. That the defendant was approached by one company named M/S Cybiz Call
International (P) Ltd. which was one of the associate company of the
plaintiff, whereby he was represented that he shall be given best career
opportunities to grow and a world class working environment besides the
best remuneration package in the industry.
6. That the defendant, lured by the false promises and assurances, resigned
from his premier and promising job and joined the company M/S Cybiz Call
International (P) ltd. on dated 17.11.2006.

7. That the defendant was made to sign some documents, which was told to him
to be a paper formality only by the said company. The defendant was also
told that he shall be given six months abroad work assignment in U.S.A. at
the company expenses in order to fully understand the working environment
of the company.

8. That after three months, the defendant along with 90 other employees was
asked to work for the plaintiff i.e. Cvent India Pvt. Ltd. from dated 12
Feb.2007, which was a associate and business partner organization of the
company Cybiz Call International (P) Ltd. The consent of the defendant was
not taken for the same. However when the defendant raised the issue, he was
specifically told by the plaintiff that he shall be provided world class
facilities, working environment and growth opportunities at the plaintiff
company. The Plaintiff was incorporated only on 15 Feb.2006 as a company.

9. That the defendant was told by the plaintiff that he shall have to work for 45
Hours per week and shall be given perks and other incentives besides the
salary The plaintiff had also promised the defendant that he shall be given
ample opportunities for personal and professional development and stress
free work environment. The plaintiff further told the defendant that he shall
be sent abroad to U.S.A. for six months work assignment and all the
expenses except the air fare shall be paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was
asked to bear the air fare to the tune of Rs.80,000 for the work assignment in
U.S.A.

10.That the plaintiff then told the defendant that he had to sign a bond as a
company policy which was said to be only a paper formality. The defendant
reluctantly signed the bond and gave a cheque for Rs. 80,000/- for air fare to
USA under the said assurances by the plaintiff.

11.That the defendant diligently worked and devoted his time, energy and
efficiency in serving the plaintiff however he soon found out that he was
 given the clerical type of work responsibilities which did not suit his
professional capabilities and expertise. Further the defendant was made to
work for long working hours beyond the stipulated 45 hours week basis and
was always set stiff deadlines for completion of the work.

12.That the adverse working environment, the nature of clerical work and long
working hours took a toll on the health of the defendant and he fell ill with
insomnia, high blood pressure, loss of appetite, backache and frequent fever.
That the defendant was made to work like a bonded labour by the plaintiff,
which was incompatible with the professional qualifications and expertise of
the defendant. The job of the defendant with the plaintiff took a toll on his
health mentally and physically and also created havoc in his family relations.

13.That the defendant was frequently abused with foul and filthy languages
incompatible with his qualifications and skills. The plaintiff frequently
indulged in violation of labour and service laws. The defendant also made
several reminders regarding the working environment, the deteriorating
health and strenuous conditions at work but no help, support and attention
was given by the senior officials at the plaintiff company.

14.That due to the bonded labour like working conditions and deteriorating
health i.e. high blood pressure, insomnia, fever, backache and loss of
appetite, the defendant was forced to resign as he was unable to bear the
mental trauma and humiliation meted out to him by the plaintiff.

15.That the agreement/contract/bond which the defendant had signed with the
plaintiff is also a null and void agreement as per contract act, being a one
sided agreement towards the plaintiff where the plaintiff was always in a
position to dominate the will of the defendant and hence the agreement is no
agreement in the eyes of law.

16.That the defendant, a well qualified professional, was not given any further
training by the plaintiff as alleged and hence the term ‘training’ is redundant.

17.That the contract/agreement/bond states 3 dates on which the terms were

explained to the defendant. Ironically one of the dated 21 Jan.2007 was
 Sunday and holiday. Hence this shows that the agreement/contract is
ambiguous and not true to its terms as alleged.

18.That the plaintiff has himself not complied with the terms and conditions of
the agreement i.e. the work environment, the growth opportunities and the
abroad work assignment.

19.That the contract/agreement/bond of the plaintiff and defendant is bad in law

as opposed to public policy and one sided and hence void contract.

20.That the suit filed by the plaintiff is not covered under the provisions of
Orders XXXVII of C.P.C. and hence no relief as claimed is legally
recoverable from the defendant thereof.

21.That the contents mentioned herein have been drafted by my counsel upon
my instructions, which are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

Deponent
Verification:

Verified at Delhi on this day of December 2008 that the contents of those of
paras no.1 to 21 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and
nothing has been concealed therein.

Dep
onent