Sbl Pvt Ltd vs V.B Shukla & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 651 Del

$~ 31
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                     Date of Decision: February 03, 2014
+                       CS(OS) 1782/2012
      SBL PVT LTD                                 ..... Plaintiff
                 Through:       Mr.Manish Srivastava, advocate and
                                Mr.S.R. Verma, Sr. Manager of plaintiff

                        versus

      V.B SHUKLA & ORS                            ..... Defendant
                Through:        Mr.J.C. Mahindroo, Advocate for D=1
                                Ms.Meenakshi Singh, Mr.Vikram Grover
                                and Ms.Shreya Verma, Advs. for Ds=2-4

      CORAM:
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S. SISTANI, J. (Oral)

IA.No.2181/2014 This is an application filed by defendant nos.2 to 4 seeking

correction in the order dated 15.1.2014. Counsel for the parties submit

that this Court had adjourned the matter for 3.2.2014, but inadvertently

the date is mentioned as 3.4.2014.

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

The date of 3.4.2014 is cancelled.

CS(OS) 1782/2012 With the consent of counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for

hearing today. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and

mandatory injunction alongwith damages. The defendant no.1 was

employed with the plaintiff company. The defendant no.1 resigned on

6.4.2012 and joined the defendant no.2 company of which defendants

no.3 and 4 are the directors.

The complaint of the plaintiff is that confidential and internal

information was carried away by the defendant no.1 to share the same

with defendant no.2, company. An ad interim ex parte injunction was

granted on 1.6.2012, when summons were issued in the suit.

Counsel appearing for the defendant no.1 on instructions, submits

that defendant no.1 has not used or passed any confidential information to

defendants no.2 to 4 nor shall he do so in future. Counsel for defendants

no.2 to 4 also submits that neither have they received any confidential

information of the plaintiff company, nor do they have any intention either

to instigate any of the employee of the plaintiff company to leave the

employment of the plaintiff or to seek confidential information from them.

In view of the stand taken by the parties and with the consent of the

parties, the present suit is decreed on the following agreed terms:

(i) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from, in any manner, directly or indirectly, disclosing any confidential information to the defendant Nos.2, 3 or 4 as mentioned in Paragraph 29 or to any third person, in any manner whatsoever or using the said confidential information for his own personal or business purposes; and

(ii) The defendant no.1 has not disclosed directly or indirectly any confidential information of plaintiff to defendants no.2 to 4, nor shall he do so, except in the ordinary course of business.

(iii) Defendant nos.2 to 4 have neither received, nor instigate nor shall they instigate any employees of the plaintiff company to leave their employment.

(iv) The plaintiff gives up the relief of damages.

CS(OS) 1782/2012                                                             2/3
        Accordingly, the decree-sheet be drawn up, in above terms.          The

court appreciates the efforts put in by their counsel and the fair stand

taken by the parties in resolving the matter. As the matter stands

resolved before framing of issues, as prayed, the plaintiff is entitled to

refund of the Court fees in terms of Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act.

The suit stands disposed of.

G.S.SISTANI, J

FEBRUARY 03, 2014 ssn

CS(OS) 1782/2012 3/3