Karnataka High Court
M/S. Torishima Pumps (India) Pvt Ltd vs Mr Shekar S C on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31308
MFA No. 2474 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2474 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. TORISHIMA PUMPS (INDIA) PVT LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAIVNG ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.1003, 10TH FLOOR
TOWER 'B', MILLENNIUM TOWERS
SECTOR 27
GURUGRAM-122 002
HARYANA
HAVING SERVICE DIVISION AT
NO.27, B, C, D,
HOSKOTE KIADB INDL. AREA
CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU-562 114
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
Digitally MR. MANOJ GROVER
signed by ...APPELLANT
MEGHA
MOHAN (BY SMT.SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.MOHAMMED ARIF KHAN MAKKI, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. MR.SHEKAR S.C.
AGED ABOUT 53 EYARS
SON OF K.N.V.SRINIVASULU
FLAT NO.302,
PREMA GRAND APARTMENTS
2ND CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT
CHICK BANASWADI MAIN RAOD
BENGALURU-560 043
KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31308
MFA No. 2474 of 2021
2. MR.SREEJESH S
AGED 45 EYARS
SON OF SANKARANARAYANAN K
NO.15, GOKULAM, VIRGONAGAR PO
DODDABASAVANAPURA (EXTN)
BENGALURU-560 068
KARNATAKA
3. MS.BABITHA M.N.
AGED 43 EYARS
WIFE OF SREEJESH S
NO.15, GOKULAM
VIRGONAGAR PO
DODDABASAVANAPURA (EXTN)
BENGALURU-560 068
KARNATAKA
4. M/S BWCP TECH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAIVNG REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.302, PREMA GRAND APARTMENT
2ND CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT
CHIKKABANASWADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 043
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R2
SMT.BEENA P.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R4)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 07.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.
139/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:31308
MFA No. 2474 of 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders
passed in I.A.No.s 1, 2 & 3 in O.S.No.3193/2022 dated
07.04.2021 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote (earlier
O.S.No.139/2021 of Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru)
whereby the Court had dismissed the applications filed by the
plaintiff, seeking injunction against the defendants.
[ 2. It is submitted that now the matter is coming up for
the further cross examination of PW-1. When this appeal is
arising out of a interlocutory order, this court is not inclined to
hear this appeal and pass orders, when the matter itself is
coming up for further cross-examination of PW-1. At this stage,
interlocutory application loses its significance.
3. Learning Senior Council appearing for the appellant
had drawn the attention of the court to para.No.40 of the
objections that are filed, wherein it is stated by the defendants
that in respect to para.No.35, the contentions are false and
baseless. As already mentioned above, the handbook and
terms thereof do not bind the respondent.No.1 as he is no
longer an employee of the appellant company. Neither is the
NC: 2024:KHC:31308
respondent No.1 approaching the appellant's customers nor he
is using the confidential information and know-how since
respondent No.1 had no access to such information during his
term at the appellant company. Drawing the attention of the
court to the said para which is filed in response to para No. 35
submits that that the same may be recorded by this court and
they will proceed with the main suit.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits
that the agreement do not bind the defendant, as long back in
the year 2017 he has resigned and there is no clarity what is
the confidential information and binding the petitioner after he
came out of the company is contrary to Section 27 of the
Contract Act. Learned Counsel has argued mainly on the point
that there is no clarity with regard to the what is the
confidential information and the merits of the matter.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. This court is not inclined
to go into and decide with regard to the legality or otherwise of
the order passed by the trial Court, at this stage when the
matter is coming up before the trial Court for further cross
NC: 2024:KHC:31308
examination of PW-1. In that view of the matter, and
particularly as the defendant No.1 has clearly stated that he is
not approaching the appellant's customers or using the
confidential information, recording the same. There shall be an
injunction restraining respondent/defendants No.1 and 4 not to
approach the plaintiff's customer or use the confidential
information during the pendency of the suit. The trial court
shall expeditiously dispose of the suit.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
All I.As., in the appeal shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
TS
