1 15-ao-968-13 with caa-1173-13.sxw
dgm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.968 OF 2013
WITH
CAA/1173/2013
Durocrete Construction Quality
Rating Agency Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
vs
Shri Ramchandra Sudhakar Soman .... Respondent
Mr. Pralhad D. Paranjape for the Appellant / Applicant
Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar for the respondent.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : December 11, 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard finally by consent.
2 The Appellant/original Plaintiff has challenged order dated 19 July 2012 passed by 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, whereby his Application for injunction is rejected on the ground that no prima facie case is made out, the aspect of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in his favour, as the ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:12 ::: 2 15-ao-968-13 with caa-1173-13.sxw Applicant failed to place on record material to substantiate the case of mis-use of "confidential information" and "trade secrets" which falls within the ambit of "intellectual property".
3 There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Respondent was in service with Appellant/company and resigned on 1 October 2008, after completion of more than four years of service.
The company's information as well as the trade secrets had been used along with others for the the job of construction quality audit. The use of knowledge, skill and experience and various other things, including protocols, checklists, training, modules and quality audit rating mechanism had been the part and parcel of the employment.
4 There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent entered into an agreement whereby the Defendant/employee was permanently restrained from using his own knowledge, skills, experience and learning. The agreement which was entered into on 29 march 2005 provides lock in period of three years after resignation that the information, trade secrets and other should not be misused.
The Appellant filed Suit on 18 March 2011, though the Respondent resigned on 1.10.2008. The Application for injunction as filed is ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:12 ::: 3 15-ao-968-13 with caa-1173-13.sxw disposed of on 19.7.2012. There was no interim protection and/or ad-interim relief even during this period. Therefore, on the date of hearing of this Appeal, practically more than five years have passed and no one could prevent the Respondent/employee from using his knowledge, skill and experience though, as alleged, he is misusing the trade secrets and information, of the Appellant/company. Mere averments of misuse of the trade secrets and/or information itself are not sufficient. What are the trade secrets and/or information which, according to the party one who alleges to be so must be on the record with detail to justify that the same trade secrets/information, the other side has been using and/or misusing. To start similar business and/or of similar nature, after resignation, just cannot be prevented, even by the ex-employer unless there is a specific agreement, which admittedly not in the present case, except the restricted period of first three years from the date of resignation.
5 There is no dispute with regard to the existence of the arbitration clause. The effect of Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the background and specifically of Section 8, is again another factor which required to be considered by the Court while granting the relief so prayed by the Plaintiff, including damages so asked for. All these ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:12 ::: 4 15-ao-968-13 with caa-1173-13.sxw reliefs, even otherwise, required detail evidence and material to justify the averments. When the question of granting interim protection and/or injunction comes, even in such situation, though the possibility of using and/or misusing the trade secrets and/or information cannot be ruled out, but still, unless the material and/or evidence placed on record, the Court, on the basis of just averments, cannot grant the interim protection as prayed in the matter.
6 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and even considering the reasons given by the learned trial judge and for the above reasons, I see there is no case made out by the Appellant to interfere with the order in question. The Appeal from Order is therefore dismissed, so also the Civil Application. However, all points kept open. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:12 :::