A single-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manish Pitale of Bombay High Court held that if a plaintiff claims that the defendants have breached confidentiality, the plaintiff must submit the confidential information to the court in a sealed envelope. The bench noted that the Court cannot confirm the allegations of confidentiality breach without examining the contents of the confidential information.
Brief Facts:
The present application for interim reliefs came to this Court for consideration, as also for the confirmation of the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 12/10/2022, granted by this Court. The defendants invoked the first proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for vacating the ex-parte ad interim order, on the ground that the plaintiff had indulged in suppression of material facts from this Court. It was also alleged on behalf of the defendants that the relevant material, as well as the correct position of law, was not brought to the notice of this Court while obtaining the ex-parte ad-interim order on 12/10/2022.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded breach of confidentiality on the part of defendant Nos.2 and 3, as they are ex-employees of the Plaintiff. As such, pleadings are for a quia timet action wherein the plaintiff apprehends misuse of its confidential information by the defendants. It is submitted that in the context of such action initiated by the plaintiff, it is not expected that each and every detail of the confidential information is placed before the Court because the confidentiality of the same would then be diluted. To substantiate his argument, the reliance was placed on a catena of judgments.
Contentions for the Defendant:
The learned Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the plaintiff had suppressed vital information from this Court, while obtaining the ad-interim order. It was submitted that the aforementioned patent granted in the United States of America, which had now expired, was not brought to the notice of this Court, even when it was the basis of machinery and equipment manufactured in the context of water purification technology. It was submitted that the drawing in respect of which the plaintiff is claiming copyright has been in the public domain for many years. Minor modifications in the dimensions would not give any proprietary rights to the plaintiff. On this basis, it was prayed that the ad-interim order deserved to be vacated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC and the application for ad-interim relief deserved to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
This Court formed the opinion that the pleadings in the present case would have to be appreciated in the light of the law governing such cases, involving allegations of breach of confidentiality by former employees of the plaintiff. After referring to the case of Narendra Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs. Ketan Mehta and Ors Notice of Motion (L) No.2071/2015 in Suit(L) No.778/201 on the aspect of confidentiality, the Court was clear that when the plaintiff alleges breach of confidentiality and seeks ad-interim reliefs in that context, the requirement as regards the nature of pleadings and the standard of pleadings is stringent. This is obviously for the reason that unless the information in the context of which the plaintiff is claiming confidentiality is specifically put forth, the Court will not be able to examine the veracity of the allegations.
Further, in view of the Court defendants are justified in raising concerns of breach of privacy during the execution of the ad-interim order of this Court. This Court cannot countenance such a breach of privacy under the garb of execution of the ad-interim injunction. The defendants are justified in contending that the ad-interim order passed by this Court virtually amounted to providing the wherewithal to the plaintiff to collect evidence in its favor. The Court also agreed with the defendant's apprehension that upon the interim order being executed, there is every possibility of the plaintiff claiming confidentiality as regards drawings and other material after the material has been seized and sealed by the Court Receiver.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court reversed its initial interim order, which was issued without the involvement of the opposing party, and ruled in favor of Rochem Separation Systems in a copyright infringement lawsuit against Nirtech Private Limited.
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirtech Private Limited & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manish Pitale
Case no.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 210 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rashmin Khandekar
Advocate for the Defendant: Mr. Amit Rahane
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
