The court emphasized that evidence is required to establish breach of injunction orders, and punitive measures must be proportionate to the nature of disobedience.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed this application invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), alleging breach by the defendant of the ad-interim order dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Court in Interim Application (L) No.21972 of 2024. The plaintiffs have prayed for attachment of properties of the defendant and also for penalizing him by putting him in civil prison, if this Court deems it fit. It is alleged that there is enough material before this Court to demonstrate that the defendant willfully disobeyed the said order of this Court and that the plaintiffs were constrained to repeatedly approach this Court, not only to demonstrate such flagrant breach, but also to ensure that there was no further breach of the order by the defendant.

2. The plaintiffs are in the business of healthcare technology and specialized healthcare revenue cycle management (RCM). They offer advanced data analytics, advisory RCM services and business intelligence solutions. The plaintiffs claim to be market leaders in the said specialized field and they approached this Court with a grievance that the defendant, being their ex-senior employee, having access to sensitive confidential and proprietary information, unauthorizedly downloaded and retained such information with the intention of disseminating the same to third parties. The plaintiffs relied upon Employment and Non-Compete Agreement dated 16.10.2023 as well as Separation Agreement and General Release dated 01.06.2024, to contend that the defendant violated the clauses of the said agreements by indulging in such activity. The defendant ceased to be in employment of the plaintiffs from 04.06.2024 and since the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant would part with such sensitive information, which included information regarding patients, they moved the present proceedings and pressed for ad-interim reliefs without notice on12.07.2024.

3. This Court (Coram: R.I. Chagla, J.) by the order dated 12.07.2024 found that sufficient grounds were made out by the plaintiffs to seek such ad-interim reliefs without notice to the defendant. This Court referred to in detail about the disclosures pertaining to the defendant and after being convinced that such confidential and proprietary information of the plaintiffs in possession of the defendant was in danger of being disseminated to third parties, granted the ex-parte ad-interim reliefs.

4. The said reliefs included an order of injunction restraining the defendant from directly or indirectly parting with the confidential and proprietary information of the plaintiffs and also from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in such information. The defendant was also restrained from utilizing, transmitting or commercially exploiting and disseminating such confidential and proprietary information. The defendant was also restrained from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright in various literary works such as client specific training document etc. This confidential and proprietary information was stated in detail in Annexures ‘A’ and ‘C’ and the said annexures were specifically mentioned in the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 12.07.2024.

5. Apart from the aforesaid directions, this Court also appointed Court Receiver of this Court as the Court Receiver in the present case and specifically authorized the Court Receiver to enter upon the premises of the defendant without notice with the help of the police and with the assistance of a third party expert, appointed by the very same order, to seize and take possession of the defendant’s personal devices including personal computers, laptops etc. The Receiver was also authorized to take possession of the password and log in credentials of the defendant to access such electronic devices and thereupon, to prepare an inventory of the confidential and proprietary information and to make mirror copies of the entire electronic data stored on such devices of the defendant. This C