Point of law: Trial Court has committed an error in not considering the issue of jurisdiction as to whether the plaint is maintainable for want of jurisdiction and on perusal of the order of the Trial Court in its entirety.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 17.02.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.2751/2020 on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.59), allowing I.A. No.1 filed under order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. restraining the defendant, including his representatives, his agents from making any statement, remarks and/or imputations against the plaintiff and its management in any social media, public forum and before any other entities, until disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant is an en-employee of the plaintiff company and was employed with the plaintiff from 09.01.2007 till 12.04.2013. The defendant during his employment with the plaintiff failed to perform his duties promptly, which left the plaintiff company with no option but to legally terminate the defendant with effect from 12.04.2013. In the year 2015, the defendant filed a case before the Labour Court, Paris against the plaintiff claiming damages for restraining the defendant from exercising his options under Employee Stock Option Plan (‘ESOP’ for short). In this regard, the French Labour Court rightly dismissed the claim of the defendant against the plaintiff dated 18.10.2018. It is also contended that the defendant had filed a revision petition before the Court of appeal challenging the findings and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2019. The defendant also made desperate attempts to initiate false and frivolous proceedings against the plaintiff by submitting a Whistleblower complaint before the Whistleblower Committee of the plaintiff company on the same grounds and the Committee considering that the said concern is a subjudice matter being considered and await orders of the Labour Court, Paris, directed the defendant to act in accordance with the observations and findings of the said Labour Court.

4. The defendant in pursuit to accomplish his false allegations against the plaintiff, also filed a complaint before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’ for short) on 06.11.2018 to initiate statutory proceedings against the plaintiff company, which was finally closed vide e-mail dated 20th February, 2020, considering that there were no merits in the allegations made by the defendant. It is also contended that the defendant has time and again with malafide intention filed several complaints before the SEBI and MCA inter alia, making baseless and frivolous allegations using defamatory and derogatory remarks such as fraudulent and lying, misleading, making false statements, do not adhere to the code of conduct, stealing shares, furnishing false information to SEBI to cover-up fraud, failures in governance and specifying incorrect number of outstanding shares against the plaintiff company and its management.

5. The defendant also made similar imputations against the plaintiff addressed to Karvy Investor Services Limited (‘Karvy’ for short) and ESOP Direct, being private entitles, with malafide intention to coerce the plaintiff company to adhere to his illegal demands. The defendant is also constantly attempting to mislead the authorities and several other service providers of the plaintiff, thereby causing irreparable loss of business and adversely affecting the reputation of the plaintiff before the society at large. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and inter alia sought for the relief of temporary injunction and before filing the suit, the plaintiff also issued legal notice to the defendant to withdraw all the complaints filed before the SEBI, MCA and all other statutory authorities and also to withdraw the defamatory imputations and tender unconditional apology and since, he did not comply with the same, the plaintiff filed the suit.

6. The very