Keeping the Right Court in Charge: How Legalfoxes Defeated a Bid to Derail a ₹98 Lakh Recovery Suit
The Gurugram Civil Court rejects a transfer application, holding that an employer’s claims against a former employee remain a civil dispute — not a commercial one.
Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram · Aaizel International Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anmol Wadhera · CIS No. CS-2708-2025 · CNR No. HRGR02-003938-2025 · Order dated 28 April 2026 · Before Shri Manish Kumar, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram
On 8 August 2025, our client, Aaizel International Technologies Pvt. Ltd., instituted a suit for recovery of ₹98,00,000, together with permanent and mandatory injunction, against a former employee, Anmol Wadhera. Mr. Wadhera had been engaged as an Embedded Engineer under an Offer Letter dated 25 November 2024 and had executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement and Code of Conduct as part of his employment. According to the plaint, he resigned after barely eight months in alleged breach of an agreed one-year tenure and thereafter disclosed confidential and patent-related material on LinkedIn, made defamatory statements against the company’s management, instigated other employees, shared internal CTC details without authorisation, and ultimately joined a competitor.
Rather than answering these allegations on the merits, the Defendant moved an application under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking transfer of the entire suit to the Commercial Court. His case was that the dispute, being founded on the NDA, confidentiality clauses and intellectual property, and exceeding the pecuniary threshold under the Act, qualified as a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c). He placed reliance on two rulings Narendra Kumar v. M/s Om Daily Needs Retailing Pvt. Ltd. (FAO (COMM) 92 of 2023) and Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Limited (CM(M) No. 457 of 2023) to argue that the matter had to proceed before the Commercial Court, with all the additional procedural rigour that would entail.
The Advocacy That Kept the Case on Track
Representing Aaizel, Mr. Atin Handuja, Founder Managing Partner of Legalfoxes, filed a detailed reply resisting the transfer. His submission was direct and well-anchored: the dispute was, at its core, founded on breach of an employment contract, premature resignation contrary to the agreed tenure, breach of confidentiality obligations under the Offer Letter and NDA, defamation, instigation of other employees, and unauthorised disclosure of CTC details. A dispute rooted in an employer-employee relationship and personal-service obligations, he argued, does not become a “commercial dispute” merely because the underlying agreements also touch on confidentiality or intellectual property.
In support, Mr. Handuja placed reliance on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in ARM Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ritesh Singh (CS(OS) 896/2024; 2025:DHC:10726) a closely analogous case involving near-identical allegations of confidentiality breach, non-compete violation and post-termination misconduct by a former employee. It was a precisely chosen precedent, and the Court found it squarely on point.
What the Court Held
“Disputes arising out of employment agreements/contracts of personal service do not constitute ‘commercial disputes’ … even if the agreements contain ancillary clauses relating to confidentiality, non-disclosure, intellectual property assignment or non-compete obligations.”
Having heard both sides and examined the pleadings, the application, the reply, and the record, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, agreed in full with Aaizel’s position. The Court held that the fundamental character of the relationship between the parties remained that of employer and employee, and that such a dispute cannot be converted into a commercial one merely by the presence of business-related or IP-related clauses. Finding the facts materially identical to those before the Delhi High Court in the ARM Digital Media matter, the Court ruled that the suit was rightly maintainable before the Civil Court and distinguished away both precedents relied upon by the Defendant as inapplicable to the facts at hand.
Going a step further, the Court observed that the transfer application appeared to have been filed with the intent to delay the proceedings, and dismissed it in its entirety, with no order as to costs. The suit now stands adjourned to 6 July 2026, for the Defendant to file his written statement and reply to the pending stay application.
Why This Result Matters
For Aaizel, the ruling means the recovery suit stays exactly where it belongs before the Civil Court, on a track built for a swift hearing on the merits, rather than being pushed into a slower, procedurally heavier commercial-court process. More broadly, the order reinforces a principle of real value to employers: a well-drafted NDA or confidentiality clause does not, by itself, hand a departing employee a route to reclassify a straightforward service dispute as commercial litigation. It is a clean, well-reasoned win on a threshold issue, and a strong early result in a case that is still very much in progress.
Firm Legalfoxes Advocates and Consultants
Advocate Mr. Atin Handuja, Founder Managing Partner
Email contact@legalfoxess.com
This case story is shared for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific matter, please consult a qualified advocate. The underlying suit remains pending before the Civil Court, Gurugram, with the next hearing listed for 6 July 2026.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.