I.A. No. 9538/2012 (by Plaintiff u/Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC) and I.A. No. 13187/2012 (by Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 u/Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of order) in CS (OS) 1436/2012

1. The Plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act filed the suit against the Defendants, its ex-employees inter alia seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from contacting or dealing with Companies namely “STRAUSS innovations” (Germany), “BOLTZE” (Germany), “IMPRESSIONEN” (Germany), “SCHNEIDER” (Germany), and DS PRODUKTE” (Germany) in any manner whatsoever or from using any other information, material, electronic and other data belonging to Plaintiff Company and seeking return of the said information, electronic data, documents etc.

2. By way of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 18th May, 2012 this Court in IA No. 9538/2012 restrained the Defendants from using the data of the Plaintiff in respect of the abovementioned clients as also contacting them. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed I.A. No. 13187/2012 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction. Thus the two applications are taken up for hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants in their written statement do not deny that they are using the data, material and information prepared while the Defendants were in employment of the Plaintiff. The case of the Defendants is that the client details of the plaintiff are in public domain and in the absence of any contract with the client which clearly authorizes the Plaintiff alone to deal with the clients in India in the business transactions, no exclusivity can be claimed. This contention of the Defendants is wholly erroneous in view of the decision of this Court in Diljeet Titus, Advocate and others vs. Alfred A. Adebare and others, 2006 (32) PTC 609 (Delhi). Relying upon Homag India Private Ltd. vs. Ulfath Ali Khan, MFA No. 1682 of 2010 decided by the Karnataka High Court on 10th October, 2012 it is stated that in an identical case the Court was pleased to grant temporary injunction. It is further contended that though the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have filed an application under Section XXXIX Rule 4 CPC however, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 have not filed any application and thus they are conscious that their acts were illegal and contrary to the law. Hence the ex-parte order granting injunction is liable to be confirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 contends that as per Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, any agreement in restraint of trade of business or lawful profession is void to that extent. Hence even assuming there is any contract though there is none, the Plaintiff cannot enforce the restraint. Relying upon American Express Bank Ltd. vs. Ms. Priya Puri, 2006 (110) FLR 1061 it is contended that facts like names of customers, telephone numbers and addresses are well known and can easily be ascertained being in public domain and thus cannot be treated as trade secret or confidential information. Referring to Ms. Sanmar Specialty Chemicals Ltd. vs. Dr. Biswajit Roy, AIR 2007 Madras 237 it is contended that confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement where-under the Respondents shall not disclose confidential information to any person after cessation of employment with the applicant and not to take up any employment or involve himself with any other person or body corporate in the similar field of activity which are competitive in nature and thus contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. Hence the interim order is liable to be vacated.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff Company got engaged inter alia in the business of trading of home textiles, home decorative, furnishing and clothing etc. and provide comprehensive buying service to international buying companies. It has developed and maintained various confidential data and i