Rating Agency Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Ramchandra Sudhakar Soman
2013 Latest Caselaw 320 Bom

                                               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

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

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

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.)