P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed by the defendants before the Trial Court challenging the common order dated 20.2.2016 on IA. Nos. 2 to 6 in O.S. No. 6254/2015. MFA No. 3009/2016 is directed against order on IA. No. 3 and MFA No. 3010/2016 against order on IA. No. 4.

2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience parties shall be referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

4. Respondent-plaintiff, a Public Limited Company filed the instant suit with several prayers. They may be summarised as under:-

(i) an order of injunction restraining the defendants from misappropriating or distributing plaintiff’s confidential information (IA. No. 4);

(ii) an order of injunction restraining the defendants from infringing patent No. 206766 (IA. No. 3);

(iii) an order of injunction restraining the defendants from using plaintiff’s trade mark “PQC STATCON”;

(iv) a direction to pay damages of Rs.5,50,00,000/- for breach of trust and infringement of patent No. 206766.

5. Plaintiff also filed IA. Nos. 2 to 6 before the Trial Court seeking certain interim orders. IA. No. 2 to appoint a Commissioner to seize the computers etc; IA. No. 3 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Patent No. 206766; IA. No. 4 seeking an order of temporary injunction from misappropriating or distributing plaintiff’s confidential information; IA. No. 5 for an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants No. 2 to 4 from soliciting plaintiff’s customers or taking employment with the customers or competitors; and IA. No. 6 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants No. 2 to 4 from continuing employment with any other competitor. By the impugned common order, Trial Court has dismissed IA Nos. 2, 5 & 6 and allowed IA. Nos. 3 & 4. Defendants are aggrieved by the common order so far as it relates to IA. Nos. 3 and 4.

6. Plaintiff’s case in brief is that it is involved in the business of manufacture and supply of Proprietary Power Products, Low Voltage Products, Industrial Motors and Drives, Power Grids, Electrical Equipment etc. It’s products are marked under the brand ‘PQC STATCON’. Defendants No. 2 to 4 are former employees of the Plaintiff. Whilst they were in service, they were entrusted with significant amount of information relating to plaintiff’s products and business.

7. Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated on 31.7.2014. Defendants No. 5 and 6 are Directors of Defendant No. 1-Company and they were acquainted with Defendants No. 2 to 4. All of them have acted in collusion with each other to establish defendant No. 1-Company.

8. Plaintiff has patented its product, which is numbered as 206766 with the Patent Registry. Plaintiff has made certain developments and improvement in its technology. The said developments are subject matter of pending patent application bearing No. 4428/CHE/2011.

9. Plaintiff learnt that 1st Defendant – Company is offering a product called ‘STATCOM’ described in its brochure as IPC 150SCOM. It is ‘a reactive power compensator’ and claims to manage the unbalanced load compensation for a three phase network. It is based on Voltage Source Converter Technology, which makes use of semi conductor devices to control IGBT (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor). The defendants have unauthorisedly incorporated plaintiff’s patented invention in their product.

10. Plaintiff’s products were developed by a team of employees, which included 2nd and 3rd defendants also. They were paid additional ‘Intellectual Property remuneration for their contribution as per company’s policy’. Defendants are now marketing and offering for sale a product by name ‘Statcom’ which is deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trade mark. The name ‘Statcom’ is