Synopsis

The appellant (former employee) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,52,737/- claiming that his salary was "deferred" during the financial year 2002-2003 due to the company's financial difficulties, and that the deferred amount along with a bonus was payable on 01.04.2003. The employer contended that it was a case of salary "restructuring" for one year, with no promise of repayment. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the letter dated 01.04.2002 signed by the employee used the language of "restructuring" not "deferment"; (ii) oral evidence cannot be led to vary the terms of a written contract under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act; (iii) internal emails using the term "deferred" did not create a contractual obligation; (iv) the employee did not raise any grievance during employment or at the time of separation; (v) the suit filed after two years of resignation was an afterthought.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Regular first appeal no. 649 of 2024

Sanjay kumar nandecha (appellant) vs. M/s. aithent technologies pvt. ltd. (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble ms. justice neena bansal krishna

Core Law: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 and 92 – Bar on oral evidence to vary written contract – Contract of employment – Salary restructuring vs. deferment – Burden of proof – Parol evidence rule.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 16, 2026 (Reserved on February 5, 2026)
Case No.: RFA No. 649 of 2024

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 (evidence of terms of contract must be documentary), 92 (exclusion of oral evidence to contradict written document), 88-A (presumption as to electronic messages)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeals from original decrees), Order XLI Rule 1 (contents of appeal)

• Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 2(h) (definition of contract), Section 9 (implied promise), Section 25 (agreement without consideration void)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an employee can claim recovery of salary alleged to have been "deferred" during a financial year, when the written letter signed by the employee uses the language of "restructuring" and contains no promise of repayment, and whether internal correspondence or oral assurances can create a legally enforceable contractual obligation.

Key legal principles applied:

• Parol evidence rule (Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act): Where the terms of a contract have been reduced to writing, no oral evidence is admissible to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from those terms. A written document signed by the parties is the sole repository of the contractual terms. (Sections 91 and 92, Indian Evidence Act)

• Burden of proof on the claimant: T

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.