1. By this order I propose to decide the application filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC).

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against defendants No. 1 to 3 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, infringement of trade dress, passing off, unfair competition, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up. This Court has been pleased to pass interim injunction dated 6th May, 2011 against the defendant which was made absolute on 22nd December, 2011.

3. The present application is moved by the plaintiff to implead M/s. Perpetuuiti Technosoft Service Private Limited as a defendant in the present suit, being a necessary and proper party. It is averred in the application that the presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the matter.

4. It is stated in the application that as per the admission of the defendants themselves in the letter dated 3rd January, 2013 which is filed along with the defendants’ application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC dated 19th January, 2013, the defendants are now continuing the same business under the name and style of Perpetuuiti Technosoft Service Private Limited (proposed defendant) who has taken over the liabilities of the defendant No. 3 company. As per plaintiff Perpetuuiti Technosoft Service Private Limited has stepped into the shoes of the defendant No. 3.

5. The defendant No. 3 has changed modus operandi in the manner of operation of defendants’ business with malafide intention in order to breach the interim order passed against the defendants in the suit. The modus operandi now adopted by the defendants are mentioned in para 4 of the application.

6. The application is opposed by the proposed defendant mainly on the ground that the proposed defendant is an independent and distinct legal entity founded in March, 2011 with different shareholders and directors and has no relation with the defendant No. 3. Mr.Virmani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the proposed defendant, argues that the said company was incorporated prior to the date of filing of the present suit. Therefore, the proposed defendant cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit. It is also argued that the defendant No. 3 is owned by the defendants No. 1 and 2. On the other hand, the proposed defendant is owned by Mr.Rohil Sharma and Shruti Lakhotia and its directors are Sudesh Sharma, Prashant Kakade and Sundar Raman. The ownership and control of both companies is entirely separate.

7. During hearing of the application, it is not denied by the learned counsel for the proposed defendant that earlier Mr.Rohil Sharma and others were working with the defendant No. 3. The copy of the e-mail dated 19th November, 2010 received from plaintiff’s partner along with the presentation circulated by the defendant, particularly pages No. 69 and 70 as well as other large number of documents speak for themselves that the business which is being carried out by the proposed defendant is the same as that of the defendants except one minor change made in the spelling of the brand name otherwise logo is also identical.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for plaintiff that the proposed defendant is engaging in the unethical trade practice of unjustly enticing the employees of the plaintiff company by offering them enormous salaries to join proposed defendant and thereby get the confidential information of plaintiff company.

9. From the materials placed on record by the plaintiff which have been referred by the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of hearing, it is evident that the defendant No. 3 and proposed defendant have obvious connection with each other. The following details at this stage is enough to grant the prayer made in the application :

“(i) One of the directors o