Karnataka High Court
M/S. Bizotico vs Mr. Mohammed Sajjad on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
MFA No. 4462 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4462 OF 2024(CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BIZOTICO,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,
HAVING ITS EARLIER REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.340, 2ND CROSS, RT NAGAR, 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
AND NO OPERATING OUT OF NO.210/2,
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS,
BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. AJAY GOPAL.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE)
signed by
MEGHA AND:
MOHAN
Location: 1. MR. MOHAMMED SAJJAD,
HIGH COURT S/O. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI,
OF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.G 101,
PEARL RESIDENCY,
NO.48/5, 5TH CROSS,
MARAPPA GARDEN,
BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 046.
2. MR. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,
S/O. MUNILAL SINGH,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
MFA No. 4462 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.401, 3RD FLOOR,
AMC RESIDENCE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ADUGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 030.
3. MR. N. SUDARSANAN,
S/O. MR. NIGAMANTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VISMAYA
NO.171/1, 9TH CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDIGUNTA COX TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHENDANDA P. SOMANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NOS.1 TO 4 IN OS.NO.7341/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-32, DISMISSING THE IA.NOS.I TO IV UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.7341/2023, dated 27.05.2024 by the XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the present appeal is filed. The -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 appellant herein who is the plaintiff in the suit had filed the suit seeking the following reliefs, "a. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives, their partners, members, agents, assigns, officers, successors-in-interest, employees, servants and all persons whomsoever claiming under or through them from accessing, utilizing, distributing or causing to be distributed or sharing or causing to be shared in any manner for any reasons whatsoever the plaintiff's confidential and proprietary data, trade secrets and information;
b. Direct the defendants to return all confidential information in their possession and permanently destroy all copies made and / or retained;
c. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 their representatives, partners, members, agents, assigns, officers, successors-in-interest, employees, servants and all persons whomsoever claiming under or through them from interfering with the business or commercial interests of the plaintiff including restraining them from communicating, transmitting, publishing, distributing or sharing in any form any material or statements either verbally or through print or electronic medium or through any visual representation, which disparage or defame the plaintiff in any manner; -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 d. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, their representatives, their partners, members, agents, assigns, officers, successors- in-interest, employees, servants and all persons whomsoever claiming under or through them from contacting or soliciting in any manner, by offering inducements of any kind or otherwise, the customers, distributors, retailers, vendors and employees of the plaintiff".
2. In the suit, they have filed I.A.Nos.1 to 4. I.A.No.1 is filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives, their partners, agents, assigns, officers, successors-in-interest, employees, servants and all persons whomsoever claiming under or through them from accessing, utilizing, distributing or causing to be distributed or sharing or causing to be shared in any manner for any reasons whatsoever the plaintiff's confidential and proprietary data, trade secrets and information. Then, I.A.No.2 is filed seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1 or anyone authorized him from accessing the e-mail address [email protected]. I.A.No.3 is filed seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1 and anybody on his behalf from contacting or soliciting in any manner, by offering inducements or any kind or -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 otherwise, the customers, distributors, retailers, vendors and employees of the plaintiff. I.A.No.4 is filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants and anybody on his behalf from communicating, transmitting, publishing, distributing or sharing any material or statements either verbally, through print or electronic medium or through any visual representation, which disparage or defame the plaintiff.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and they have commenced its operations in the year 2015 and it has been one of leading distributors of fashion and 15 brands of luxury watches and accessories in India and the plaintiff had built retail network of over 500 stores across India and they have also launched their own online platform. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was employed with the plaintiff as the Executive Sales Director in the year 2018. He was in the supervisory position including overseeing delivery of service, generating new business from existing accounts, contribution towards achieving annual revenue targets and sales targets, contract negotiations with distributors and he is privy to some of the most -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 confidential aspects of the business. He had joined with the plaintiff company on 31.01.2021 and resigned the job on 17.10.2023. Defendant No.2 had joined on 31.01.2021 and resigned on 20.10.2023. Then, defendant No.3 was employed on July 2022 as Senior Manager, Planning and Merchandise and was in charge of planning, purchase, branch wise performance and insights and budgeting promotions etc. and he resigned from the job on 07.11.2023. In the year 2023, the plaintiff had come to know that when he was looking at the details pertaining to the vendor, they found that defendant No.1 has deleted majority emails and all data from the year 2019 onwards from the laptop. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have also tried to obtain the standard operative procedures used by the plaintiff or their vendors from the Manager-Operations. They have also got the reimbursement for fuel costs on the basis of false bills. Defendant No.1 was actively assisted by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have forwarded several price sensitive information to the personal email ID of defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are stealing confidential information from the plaintiff with a deliberate and malafide intend to cause loss. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 Hence, they have come with the suit and also I.A.Nos.1 to 4 restraining them from doing any kind of act which are not in the interest of the plaintiff company.
4. It is the case of the defendants that the injunction that is sought infringes the fundamental right of the defendant's personal liberty and he cannot be restrained from using his own personal email. If the applications are allowed, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the defendants and in fact, the balance of convenience lies with them. The Trial Court had considered the pleadings of the parties and defendant No.1, in the affidavit filed by him has stated that he will not share any confidential information with regard to the plaintiff company and the brand it is associated with. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff company has suppressed material facts and suggested falsehood with malafide intention of obtaining interim orders behind the back of the defendants. Moreover, the documents produced by the defendants reveal that since the official laptop provided by the company is already taken by the defendants, they do not have any information belonging to the firm. It further reveals that the laptop given to -8- NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 defendant No.1 was taken by the HR on 30.09.2023 for virus rectification. Therefore, it cannot be stated that defendants are accessing, utilizing or distributing or causing to be distributed or sharing or causing to be shared in any manner the plaintiffs confidential and proprietary date, trade secrets and information and done wrong in publishing the statements against the plaintiff. The Trial Court had observed that the defendants neither blamed the plaintiff nor made any allegations against the plaintiff. The documents and other materials produced reveals that since the email was full, the HR requested the defendants to delete the old email from server to prevent the bounce back of email. Hence, it can be said that defendants have not erased/vanished the mails on their own, not published any statements which is defamatory in nature against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that there is no merits in the application and dismissed the applications. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they have stated elaborately in their plaint about the manner in which the defendants are acting, which is detrimental to the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 interest of the plaintiff's company, all these aspects were not considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had failed to consider that if an injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Without considering any of the aspects, the Trial Court had dismissed the applications.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the plaintiff company deals with some particular brand and the defendants with whom he is now attached or working with the company that deals with all together different brands and now, there is no similarity in the business between the plaintiff and the defendant. In fact, they have filed an undertaking before the Court that they will not be utilizing any of the information pertaining to the plaintiff. He submits that as far as the defamation is concerned, the plaintiff has not placed any material before the Court stating that the defendants have indulged in any those activities and trying to defame the plaintiff and without any basis all those applications are filed and the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the applications and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 as there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were working with the plaintiff company by holding key positions. All the three of them have left the job. Now, after leaving the plaintiff company they have joined with another company. The defendants have expertise in the watch industry. The company with which they are now attached to, is dealing with different brands unconnected with the brands the plaintiff company is dealing. Now, the very suit that is filed is that their confidential personal data might be used by the defendants and there should be an injunction restraining them from using the said data. Defendant No.1 had already filed an affidavit before the Court stating that they are not going to utilize any of the information pertaining to the plaintiff company. Further, with regard to the distributors and others are concerned, even in that case also when both of them are not dealing with same brands, for the brands for which the defendant is working even
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 if they are utilizing the services of the very same distributor that cannot be restrained by this Court.
8. Considering the arguments of both the parties and considering the affidavit that is filed before the Trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following, ORDER i. There shall be a direction to the defendants not to utilize the personal data pertaining to the plaintiff company and the particular brands which the plaintiff is dealing with, the respondent/defendants shall not solicit business contact with respect to the brand which the plaintiff is dealing till the disposal of the suit.
ii. As far as the I.A. with regard to the defamation is concerned as the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the said application as there was no material placed before the Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29882 MFA No. 4462 of 2024 iii. Then, with regard to not using the email is concerned, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as that being the personal email of the defendant and he has already undertaken before the Court that he will not use any information pertaining to the plaintiff company, even that application is liable to be dismissed. iv. For the other brands there cannot be any injunction restraining them from soliciting with the distributors.
v. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. vi. All I.As, in the appeal, shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19