Back
High Court Of Delhi
DILJEET TITUS - Appellant
Versus
ALFRED A.ADEBARE - Respondent
Decided On : 05/08/2006
The court held that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants was one of contract of service, and that the defendants had breached their duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff by copying and taking away confidential client-related documentation. The court also held that the defendants were not entitled to claim copyright in the material they had created, as it was created in the course of their employment with the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a sole proprietor law firm, brought suit against the defendants, four former associates, alleging that they had breached their duty of confidentiality by copying and taking away confidential client-related documentation. The defendants counterclaimed, alleging that they were partners in the plaintiff's firm and that they had created the material in question independently.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants were not partners in the plaintiff's firm, but were instead employees. The court also found that the defendants had breached their duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff by copying and taking away confidential client-related documentation. The court further found that the defendants were not entitled to claim copyright in the material they had created, as it was created in the course of their employment with the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were partners in the plaintiff's firm or employees? 2. Whether the defendants breached their duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendants were entitled to claim copyright in the material they had created?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the defendants were not partners in the plaintiff's firm, but were instead employees, based on the following factors: * The defendants did not have any ownership interest in the plaintiff's firm. * The defendants were paid a salary, rather than a share of the profits. * The defendants did not have any control over the management of the plaintiff's firm. 2. The court found that the defendants had breached their duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff by copying and taking away confidential client-related documentation, based on the following factors: * The defendants had a duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff, as they were employees of the plaintiff's firm. * The defendants copied and took away confidential client-related documentation without the plaintiff's permission. * The defendants used the confidential client-related documentation for their own benefit. 3. The court found that the defendants were not entitled to claim copyright in the material they had created, as it was created in the course of their employment with the plaintiff, based on the following factors: * The material was created by the defendants while they were employed by the plaintiff. * The material was created using the plaintiff's resources. * The material was created for the benefit of the plaintiff's clients.
Final Decision: The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from using or disseminating the confidential client-related documentation. The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.
( 1 ) IA No. 6695/2004 (u/o 39 R 1 and 2 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 1109/2004 ia No. 7477/2004 (u/o 39 R 1 and 2 CPC) in CS legal practice has changed especially over the last few years. The traditional concept of learning law at the feet of your senior has given way to an environment of more cutthroat competition where everyone is looking to their self-interest. Such change is naturally at the cost of the traditional norms. There has been a growth of law firms where advocates specializing in different fields are under one roof. This requires a greater degree of understanding in the definition of relationships between the advocates.
( 2 ) THE present dispute is a saga of broken relationships which was started with all good intentions. Since the matter was one between advocates and their associates every endeavour was made to find an amicable settlement to the dispute but t o no avail. The order sheet itself bears a testimony to sucheavour.
( 3 ) THERE are two counter suits filed by the two set of parties aggrieved by the conduct of each other. In a nutshell their controversy revolves around the nature of relationship with which the parties got together to carry on their profession as advocates. The plaintiff in suit No. 1109/2004 claims that the defendants were only working for him and were paid remuneration in the form of fee while he remained in control of the professional business of the organization. On the other hand the defendants in the said suit, in the new organization set up by them, claim to have worked more in the nature of partnership with Mr. Diljeet Titus, the plaintiff in CS (OS) No. 1109/2004
( 4 ) THE defendants decided to part with Mr. Titus and the parting has not been very amicable. Mr. Titus claims that the defendants, who were associates in his law firm, M/s. Titus and Company, left and at that stage took away privileged information of the law firm the use of which other than by Mr. Titus, can make him liable to his clients. There is grievance of infringement of copyright and apart from the injunction suit filed in this Court even criminal complaints were filed. The data continues to be in possession of the defendants and it is in view thereof that interim reliefs have been claimed.
( 5 ) THE defendants claim to be the owners of the copyright in what they have created and it is their contention that the creation was independent and the same was so created by advising and counseling the clients and the computer generated data was lying in the computer system of the plaintiff. In the counter suits thus the parting associates numbering four being Ms. Seema ahluwalia Jhingan, Mr. Alishan Naqvee, Mr. Dimpy Mohanty and Mr. Alfred A. Adebare have sought a decree of declaration that they are the owners of the copyrights in what they have created and consequently they have sought a permanent injunction against Mr. Titus and his firm from using and parting with the same. The question thus arises as to whether there is exclusive right of any of the parties in what they have created or is it a joint right.
( 6 ) MR. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Titus emphasized on the essence of copyright: ?thou shalt not steal?. It was thus pleaded that there was an implicit term of confidentiality in any such relationship between advocates and the defendants were thus alleged to have breached this implicit term. The nature of information stated to have been taken away by the defendants was primarily of a two-fold nature, i. e. , (i) the list of clients and law firms; and (?i) opinions and advises in respect of which the plaintiff itself had an obligation to maintain confidentiality.
( 7 ) LEARNED senior counsel referred to the principles of damnum sine injuria conceding that some injury is inevitable where a junior leaves the office of a senior associate. This was, however, contended not to include a legal injury on the principles of damnum sine injuria. The sub-stratum of submissions were
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
