Karnataka High Court
M/S. Bizotico vs Mr. Mohammed Sajjad on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
MFA No. 4462 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4462 OF 2024(CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BIZOTICO,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,
HAVING ITS EARLIER REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.340, 2ND CROSS, RT NAGAR, 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
AND NO OPERATING OUT OF NO.210/2,
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS,
BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. AJAY GOPAL.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE)
signed by
MEGHA AND:
MOHAN
Location: 1. MR. MOHAMMED SAJJAD,
HIGH COURT S/O. HAFIZULLAH ANSARI,
OF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.G 101,
PEARL RESIDENCY,
NO.48/5, 5TH CROSS,
MARAPPA GARDEN,
BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 046.
2. MR. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,
S/O. MUNILAL SINGH,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
MFA No. 4462 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.401, 3RD FLOOR,
AMC RESIDENCE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ADUGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 030.
3. MR. N. SUDARSANAN,
S/O. MR. NIGAMANTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VISMAYA
NO.171/1, 9TH CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDIGUNTA COX TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHENDANDA P. SOMANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NOS.1 TO 4 IN OS.NO.7341/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-32, DISMISSING THE IA.NOS.I TO IV UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 to 4 in
O.S.No.7341/2023, dated 27.05.2024 by the XX Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the present appeal is filed. The
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
appellant herein who is the plaintiff in the suit had filed the suit
seeking the following reliefs,
"a. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their representatives, their partners, members,
agents, assigns, officers, successors-in-interest,
employees, servants and all persons whomsoever
claiming under or through them from accessing,
utilizing, distributing or causing to be distributed
or sharing or causing to be shared in any manner
for any reasons whatsoever the plaintiff's
confidential and proprietary data, trade secrets
and information;
b. Direct the defendants to return all confidential
information in their possession and permanently
destroy all copies made and / or retained;
c. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant
No.1 and defendant No.2 their representatives,
partners, members, agents, assigns, officers,
successors-in-interest, employees, servants and
all persons whomsoever claiming under or
through them from interfering with the business
or commercial interests of the plaintiff including
restraining them from communicating,
transmitting, publishing, distributing or sharing in
any form any material or statements either
verbally or through print or electronic medium or
through any visual representation, which
disparage or defame the plaintiff in any manner;
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
d. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant
No.1, their representatives, their partners,
members, agents, assigns, officers, successors-
in-interest, employees, servants and all persons
whomsoever claiming under or through them
from contacting or soliciting in any manner, by
offering inducements of any kind or otherwise,
the customers, distributors, retailers, vendors and
employees of the plaintiff".
2. In the suit, they have filed I.A.Nos.1 to 4. I.A.No.1 is
filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants,
their representatives, their partners, agents, assigns, officers,
successors-in-interest, employees, servants and all persons
whomsoever claiming under or through them from accessing,
utilizing, distributing or causing to be distributed or sharing or
causing to be shared in any manner for any reasons whatsoever
the plaintiff's confidential and proprietary data, trade secrets
and information. Then, I.A.No.2 is filed seeking temporary
injunction restraining defendant No.1 or anyone authorized him
from accessing the e-mail address [email protected].
I.A.No.3 is filed seeking temporary injunction restraining
defendant No.1 and anybody on his behalf from contacting or
soliciting in any manner, by offering inducements or any kind or
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
otherwise, the customers, distributors, retailers, vendors and
employees of the plaintiff. I.A.No.4 is filed seeking temporary
injunction restraining the defendants and anybody on his behalf
from communicating, transmitting, publishing, distributing or
sharing any material or statements either verbally, through
print or electronic medium or through any visual
representation, which disparage or defame the plaintiff.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a
registered partnership firm and they have commenced its
operations in the year 2015 and it has been one of leading
distributors of fashion and 15 brands of luxury watches and
accessories in India and the plaintiff had built retail network of
over 500 stores across India and they have also launched their
own online platform. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant
No.1 was employed with the plaintiff as the Executive Sales
Director in the year 2018. He was in the supervisory position
including overseeing delivery of service, generating new
business from existing accounts, contribution towards achieving
annual revenue targets and sales targets, contract negotiations
with distributors and he is privy to some of the most
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
confidential aspects of the business. He had joined with the
plaintiff company on 31.01.2021 and resigned the job on
17.10.2023. Defendant No.2 had joined on 31.01.2021 and
resigned on 20.10.2023. Then, defendant No.3 was employed
on July 2022 as Senior Manager, Planning and Merchandise and
was in charge of planning, purchase, branch wise performance
and insights and budgeting promotions etc. and he resigned
from the job on 07.11.2023. In the year 2023, the plaintiff had
come to know that when he was looking at the details
pertaining to the vendor, they found that defendant No.1 has
deleted majority emails and all data from the year 2019
onwards from the laptop. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have also
tried to obtain the standard operative procedures used by the
plaintiff or their vendors from the Manager-Operations. They
have also got the reimbursement for fuel costs on the basis of
false bills. Defendant No.1 was actively assisted by defendant
Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have forwarded several
price sensitive information to the personal email ID of
defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendants are stealing confidential information from the
plaintiff with a deliberate and malafide intend to cause loss.
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
Hence, they have come with the suit and also I.A.Nos.1 to 4
restraining them from doing any kind of act which are not in the
interest of the plaintiff company.
4. It is the case of the defendants that the injunction that
is sought infringes the fundamental right of the defendant's
personal liberty and he cannot be restrained from using his own
personal email. If the applications are allowed, irreparable loss
and injury would be caused to the defendants and in fact, the
balance of convenience lies with them. The Trial Court had
considered the pleadings of the parties and defendant No.1, in
the affidavit filed by him has stated that he will not share any
confidential information with regard to the plaintiff company
and the brand it is associated with. It is the case of the
defendant that the plaintiff company has suppressed material
facts and suggested falsehood with malafide intention of
obtaining interim orders behind the back of the defendants.
Moreover, the documents produced by the defendants reveal
that since the official laptop provided by the company is already
taken by the defendants, they do not have any information
belonging to the firm. It further reveals that the laptop given to
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
defendant No.1 was taken by the HR on 30.09.2023 for virus
rectification. Therefore, it cannot be stated that defendants are
accessing, utilizing or distributing or causing to be distributed or
sharing or causing to be shared in any manner the plaintiffs
confidential and proprietary date, trade secrets and information
and done wrong in publishing the statements against the
plaintiff. The Trial Court had observed that the defendants
neither blamed the plaintiff nor made any allegations against
the plaintiff. The documents and other materials produced
reveals that since the email was full, the HR requested the
defendants to delete the old email from server to prevent the
bounce back of email. Hence, it can be said that defendants
have not erased/vanished the mails on their own, not published
any statements which is defamatory in nature against the
plaintiff. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that there is no merits
in the application and dismissed the applications. Aggrieved
thereby the plaintiff is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they
have stated elaborately in their plaint about the manner in
which the defendants are acting, which is detrimental to the
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
interest of the plaintiff's company, all these aspects were not
considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had failed to
consider that if an injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would
be put to irreparable loss and hardship and the balance of
convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Without considering
any of the aspects, the Trial Court had dismissed the
applications.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits
that the plaintiff company deals with some particular brand and
the defendants with whom he is now attached or working with
the company that deals with all together different brands and
now, there is no similarity in the business between the plaintiff
and the defendant. In fact, they have filed an undertaking
before the Court that they will not be utilizing any of the
information pertaining to the plaintiff. He submits that as far as
the defamation is concerned, the plaintiff has not placed any
material before the Court stating that the defendants have
indulged in any those activities and trying to defame the
plaintiff and without any basis all those applications are filed
and the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the applications and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
as there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material placed on record. The sum and substance
of the case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were
working with the plaintiff company by holding key positions. All
the three of them have left the job. Now, after leaving the
plaintiff company they have joined with another company. The
defendants have expertise in the watch industry. The company
with which they are now attached to, is dealing with different
brands unconnected with the brands the plaintiff company is
dealing. Now, the very suit that is filed is that their confidential
personal data might be used by the defendants and there
should be an injunction restraining them from using the said
data. Defendant No.1 had already filed an affidavit before the
Court stating that they are not going to utilize any of the
information pertaining to the plaintiff company. Further, with
regard to the distributors and others are concerned, even in
that case also when both of them are not dealing with same
brands, for the brands for which the defendant is working even
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
if they are utilizing the services of the very same distributor
that cannot be restrained by this Court.
8. Considering the arguments of both the parties and
considering the affidavit that is filed before the Trial Court, this
Court deems it appropriate to pass the following,
ORDER
i. There shall be a direction to the defendants not
to utilize the personal data pertaining to the
plaintiff company and the particular brands
which the plaintiff is dealing with, the
respondent/defendants shall not solicit
business contact with respect to the brand
which the plaintiff is dealing till the disposal of
the suit.
ii. As far as the I.A. with regard to the defamation
is concerned as the Trial Court had rightly
dismissed the said application as there was no
material placed before the Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29882
iii. Then, with regard to not using the email is
concerned, the plaintiff is not entitled for any
relief as that being the personal email of the
defendant and he has already undertaken
before the Court that he will not use any
information pertaining to the plaintiff company,
even that application is liable to be dismissed.
iv. For the other brands there cannot be any
injunction restraining them from soliciting with
the distributors.
v. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
vi. All I.As, in the appeal, shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
