Soumen Sen, J.

The protection of confidential information, a branch of law, evolved by judgments, is the core issue raised in this proceeding.

The genesis of the problem appears to be the fallout of the mutual non-disclosure agreement (hereinafter referred to as “NDA”) entered into in anticipation of a joint venture agreement.

The petitioner was incorporated in 1988. The petitioner is in the business of organizing travel trade shows. The petitioner claims that the petitioner was the first in India to promote travel trade show with direct interaction between the sellers and buyers in the travel industry. The petitioner has over the years and at least for the last 20-25 years organized many travel trade shows all over the country and the name of the petitioner has become synonymous with such travel trade shows.

In or about 5th March, 2013, the petitioner, through an electronic mail evinced its intention to enter into a joint venture agreement with the petitioner. Pursuant to the said e-mail, discussions were held by a subsequent e-mail dated 15th March, 2013, the respondent No.1 had expressed its intention to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the petitioner. On 15th March, 2013, a mutual non-disclosure agreement was entered into between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner.

The petitioner states that such agreement was entered into on the basis of the representations made by the respondent No.1 that:-

i) The respondent No.1 was genuinely interested in entering into a joint venture agreement or in taking over the petitioner in connection with the business of travel and trade shows.

ii) There was no impediment on the part of the respondent No.1 in entering into negotiations with the petitioner or in the matter of taking over the petitioner or in the matter of entering into in a joint venture agreement with the petitioner in connection with such travel trade show business.

iii) The minority holding of the respondent No.1 in the respondent No.2 would not in any manner have any bearing on the transactions between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was acting for its own interest in the business of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that on the basis of such representations, the petitioner has entered into the said NDA. It is contended that the confidential information which the petitioner was to disclose under the agreement was of a nature which would not be available in public domain and was exclusively available with the petitioner and related to the business, clients, customers, business practice and trade secrets of the petitioner and also including commercial, technical, scientific, operational, administrative, financial and marketing information. The petitioner would not have under any circumstances parted with such information to any third party except under the said NDA and only for the purpose of the proposed joint venture or takeover of the petitioner itself. The said agreement was to remain valid for a period of six months after the date of signing. The recipient, namely the respondent No.1 was required to keep the information confidential and not disclose directly or indirectly the information for a period of two years after the termination of the said agreement without the written consent of the petitioner.

Following the aforesaid agreement, the respondent No.1, by an electronic mail dated 19th March, 2013, requested the petitioner to provide confidential financial and marketing information. After receiving the aforesaid electronic mail, the petitioner expressed its concern about the proposed travel show to be launched by the respondent No.2 from 16th to 18th January, 2014 in arrangement with the respondent No.1 and sought clarification from the respondent No.1. The petitioner was assured by the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 is genuinely interested to acquire the petitioner or to enter into a joint venture with the petitioner and, therefore, any association with the res