[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Smart Call Centre Solutions Private ... vs Sidhart Sebastian Chowdhury And Ors on 6 April, 2026
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OIP -8
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO.GA-COM/1/2025
IN
IP-COM/33/2025
SMART CALL CENTRE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
SIDHART SEBASTIAN CHOWDHURY AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 6th April, 2026.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Rishabh Karnani, Adv.
Mr. Shayak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Baid, Adv.
For plaintiff/petitioner
Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar,Adv.
Mr. Shraman Sarkar, Adv.
For respondent nos. 3 & 5
THE COURT: The plaintiff has taken out this application, inter alia, for
injunction in a suit filed for enforcing the clause against the former employees
for non-disclosure of the trade secrets and data made available to them in
course of their work after they have left the organization.
It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant nos.1 to 18 were former
employees of the plaintiff company. They have left the services of the plaintiff at
different point of time. The cap under the agreement for non-disclosure is two
years period. The plaintiff says that during the pendency of the suit five
defendants, namely, defendant nos.2, 5, 11,12 and 18 have surpassed the two
years lock-in period and, as such, the plaintiff cannot enforce such clause
against the said defendants. The plaintiff says that the defendant nos.1, 3, 4,
5, 6, 8, 10 and 17 out of 18 defendants have filed an affidavit-in-opposition to
the plaintiff's application. The affidavit in paragraph 6 has stated the
following:-
"6. Save and except what would appear as matters of record, the
allegations made in paragraph 12 to 14 of the said application are denied and
disputed. The Respondents categorically deny the allegations contained in
paragraph 13. It is specifically denied that the Petitioner possesses or provides
any trade secrets or confidential information as alleged or at all. The databases
and information relied upon in the course of employment are publicly available in
the open/public domain and can be freely accessed online by any person. Hence,
there are no sensitive or confidential trade secrets belonging to the Petitioner or
its clientele that could have come to the knowledge of the Respondents in the
course of their employment. The allegation of possession of unique or confidential
trade secrets, or any breach thereof, is wholly misconceived, baseless, and
denied in toto."
The learned advocate representing the defendant nos.1 to 18 now says
that he is representing only defendant nos.3 and 5. So far as the rest of the
appearing defendants are concerned, the learned advocate has given change by
way of 'no objection'. The said defendants, however, are not represented before
the Court in view of the submissions made by the learned advocate now
representing the defendant nos.3 and 5. Although, the advocate may not be
representing the other defendants except the defendant nos.3 and 5 for the
present but the affidavit stands in the name of the defendant nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 10 and 17 binds them.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the defendant nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 10 and 17 are directed to abide by their respective statements in the
affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 27 th August, 2025.
The plaintiff shall be entitled to proceed against the said defendants in
the event there is any breach committed to the assurance already given by the
said defendants in their affidavit-in-opposition.
So far as the defendant nos.2, 7, 9,11 to 16 are concerned, there shall be
an order of injunction restraining them from divulging any records or
documents which the said defendants gained access while working with the
plaintiff company in any manner whatsoever.
Let a copy of this order be served on all the defendants through speed
post or to any other acceptable mode of service and additionally through
internet.
The application being IA No.GA-COM/1/2025 is, thus, disposed of.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
Sb/
