Delhi High Court
M/S Stp Limited vs Vishal Jain on 6 October, 2016
$~3/21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 06, 2016
+ FAO 486/2016
M/S STP LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.I. Jose & Mr. Jatin Kumar
Singh, Advocates
Versus
VISHAL JAIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Advocate
ORDER
% ORAL
C.M.No. 37629/2016 & C.M.No. 37630/2016 ( both for exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No. 37626/2016(under Order VI Rule 17 CPC)
By this application, applicant-appellant seeks to place on record the
amended appeal in view of the last order.
Notice.
Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent.
In view of averments made in the application, it is allowed and the
amended appeal filed along with this application is taken on record.
Application is disposed of.
FAO 486/2016 Page 1
C.M.No. 37628/2016 (u/S 151 CPC)
By this application, applicant-appellant seeks to place on record
copies of additional documents which were already on the trial court
record.
Notice.
Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent.
Upon hearing and in view of averments made in paragraph No.2 of
this application, it is allowed and the additional documents filed along
with this application are taken on record.
Application is disposed of.
FAO 486/2016 & C.M.No. 37627/2016 (for stay)
Impugned order of 12th July, 2016 rejects appellant's application
for interim injunction in a suit seeking damages, permanent injunction
and rendition of accounts on account of respondent-defendant violating
Secrecy Clause-18 in 'Letter of Appointment', which has been reproduced
by the trial court in the impugned order, while noting that appellant-
plaintiff was engaged in commercial transaction with respondent-
defendant, who after leaving the job of Marketing Manager with
appellant-company, had started operating the similar business and this
automatically waters down the Secrecy Clause-18 in 'Letter of
Appointment' and so, prayer for interim injunction has been declined vide
impugned order. In the opening paragraphs of the impugned order, the
factual background of this case stands noted and needs no reproduction.
FAO 486/2016 Page 2
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant contends that
appellant is divulging the trade secrets and confidential information of
appellant-company to third parties for business gain and this clearly
violates Secrecy Clause-18 of 'Letter of Appointment' in question and so,
respondent ought to be restrained from doing so.
Attention of this Court is drawn to paragraphs No. 8, 11 & 12 of
copy of the plaint (Annexure P-10) to show that respondent is engaging in
parallel business and is misusing the position he held in appellant-
company to divert the business. It is also pointed out that by misusing the
corporate contacts and information of the appellant-company, respondent-
defendant is causing loss of business to appellant-plaintiff in total
violation of aforesaid Secrecy Clause in 'Letter of Appointment'. It is
urged by appellant's counsel that it is specifically pleaded in the plaint
that respondent-defendant is covertly working for personal gain using the
trade secrets of the plaintiff-company. So, it is submitted that the
impugned order deserve to be set aside and appellant's application for
interim injunction ought to be allowed. Nothing else is urged on behalf of
appellant.
Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order and
submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and
this appeal deserves to be outrightly thrown out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and material
on record, I find that the Secrecy Clause-18 is reproduced in the
impugned order and its perusal reveals that respondent-defendant shall
not carry on any such business, which is in any way detrimental to the
FAO 486/2016 Page 3
business interests of appellant-company and that he shall not disclose
trade secrets or confidential information of appellant-company and this
Clause shall remain effective for a period of seven years after respondent
ceases to be an employee of appellant-company.
Whether the Secrecy Clause-18 stands violated by respondent, as
he is obtaining orders from third parties and after some commercial
transaction with appellant, is carrying on ancillary business is an issue
which is required to be determined at trial after the evidence is led by the
parties and it cannot be prejudged at this initial stage. It appears, this
Clause infact stands watered down because commercial transactions have
been entered into by appellant-company with respondent. The factum of
such commercial transaction between the parties was not disputed during
the course of hearing. Even otherwise, during the course of hearing, it
was not shown to this Court as to how the trade secrets of appellant-
company are being leaked out by respondent or what confidential
information has been diverged to a third party. The necessary averments
in this regard appear to be lacking in the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff.
Such a view is being taken purely for the purpose of deciding application
for stay. It is settled legal position that by way of an interim relief, final
relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other.
In view of the dictum of Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs.
Modiluft Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2218 and Mehul Mahendra Thakkar Vs.
Meena Mehul Thakkar (2009) 14 SCC 48, this Court is of the considered
opinion that interim relief sought in the application is infact the main
relief sought in the suit and so, it cannot be granted as an interim relief.
FAO 486/2016 Page 4
In view of the aforesaid, the dismissal of appellant's application for
interim relief is justified. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order of 12th July, 2016, this appeal and application are
dismissed with the clarification that nothing observed herein shall have
any bearing on the merits of the case at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 06, 2016
r
FAO 486/2016 Page 5
