Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common impugned order dated 25.8.2008 in terms whereof the applications filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Sitting as an Appellate Court, we need not again re-write the entire reasoning as contained in the impugned order and with which we fully agree. However, in gist, the facts and issues which have been decided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order are that:-

(i) Merely because certain facts alleged in the plaint show violation of the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and for which, remedy is provided under the Information Technology Act, would not mean that a plaint which contains various other cause of actions and other reliefs based on the cause of actions, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(ii) A part of a plaint cannot be rejected.

3. The suits which were filed in the original side of this court by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff sought the reliefs of injunction restraining infringement of copyright and breach of confidentiality, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts and damages. The substratum of the case as laid down in the suit was that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff company was the largest equipment manufacturer in the India pertaining to construction and materials handling machinery such as Backhoe Loaders, Hydraulic Excavators etc and which were being sold under the world renowned trademark of JCB and its logo. It was further averred in the suits that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff company engaged the services of the appellant/defendant No. 1 in the capacity of Manager-Design in product engineering. It is further averred in the plaint that during the course of employment, the defendant No. 1 was privy to various confidential information, drawings, designs, plans etc pertaining to the products of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff company. The appellant thereafter left the employment of the respondent No. 1 company and joined its competitor M/s Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. It is further averred in the plaint that the appellant has mis-appropriated and mis-utilized the confidential data, drawings, designs, secrets and other related information of the plaintiff company. The further case as averred is that the appellant transmitted the confidential information from the respondent No. 1 company from his official e-mail ID in the respondent No. 1 company to his personal e-mail ID. It became clear that the appellant using computers systems and computer network of the plaintiff company down-loaded, copied and extracted drawings, confidential designs, data and information of the plaintiff company without its permission and further transmitted and forwarded the same to his personal ID. The plaintiff also made averments with respect to the violation of the provisions of the Information Technology Act.

4. In view of the averments so made in the plaint, the respondent No. 1 /plaintiff sought the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellant from infringing the copyright of the respondent No. 1 in the confidential information, data, designs, drawings and other related materials constituting the trade secrets of the plaintiff company relating to the plaintiff business of manufacturing of its machinery. Besides other related reliefs of injunction, mandatory injunction was sought to return the misappropriated information and other confidential data, copyright material etc. Rendition of accounts was also sought and also a decree for damages.

5. The defendant/appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only on the ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, and more particularly Section 61 thereof, which provides that a civil court will not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which an adjudicating officer appointed under the Act or the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under the Act is empowered to determine. I