JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. This order shall dispose of two applications, namely, I.A. 7119/2021 under XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs seeking interim relief and the application I.A. 8364/2021 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants No.1 & 2 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. Since the opposition by the defendants No.1 & 2, to the grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, is premised on the stand taken in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, namely, that this Court has no jurisdiction, and the suit is barred by law, it is considered appropriate to dispose of both the applications by this common order, the contentions being common.

3. Before proceeding further, certain facts may be noted. The suit has been filed for damages and permanent and mandatory injunction, inter alia seeking to restrain Defendants Nos.1 and 2 from making defamatory statements and spreading malicious falsehoods, committing unlawful and tortious interference with the business of the plaintiffs and indulging in breach of privacy of the plaintiffs and its employees. The plaintiff No.1, Convergytics Solution Pvt. Ltd. is a duly incorporated company acting through it's CEO and Managing Director. The plaintiff No.2, Sanjeev Mishra is the co-founder and Managing Director of the Company and leads the Analytical Solution Department at the company as well as Clients Engagement and Delivery. Plaintiff No.3, Santosh Vithal Rao Atre is an Executive Vice President Client Engagement (US accounts) and hence, leads the account management and heads the new business development for the company. It is further claimed that plaintiffs No.2 & 3 together comprise the majority share-holders of the company.

4. Randhir Hebbar, Defendant No.1 has been described as an ex- employee of the company who had been engaged in the position of a Vice President vide letter of employment dated 2nd July, 2013 and whose appointment was terminated by the company for cause on 25th November, 2020. Bhagyasri Hebbar, Defendant No.2 is stated to be a share-holder and former Director of the company. The two defendants are husband and wife.

5. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.1 was indulging in activities that were against the interests of the plaintiff No.1 and therefore, his services were terminated and soon thereafter, the defendant No.1 alongwith his wife defendant No.2 had started a vicious campaign against the plaintiffs by reaching out to employees and clients of the plaintiff No.1 in such a manner that was adversely impacting the business activities and reputation of the plaintiff No.1. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the actions of the defendants No.1 & 2 had resulted in employees leaving the firm and important clients such as Dell, Tata Motors, Titan, Tanishq etc. becoming so disturbed that they had started seeking clarifications from them in order to continue business with them. In this background, the present suit has been filed praying that a decree of injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from indulging in such activities, particularly, through social media and damages of Rs.5 crores have also been claimed among other reliefs. By means of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, interim directions were sought to restrain the defendants No.1&2 from such activities during the pendency of the suit. Interim directions were also sought to the defendants No.3 & 4 being LinkedIn Technology and LinkedIn Corporation, to take down the offending communications on their platform.

6. It may be mentioned at this juncture that LinkedIn had informed that it had complied with the directions by taking down the offending communications from its platform and on request, has been deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 2nd August, 2021.

7. By means of the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC, the defendants contend that this Court had no territorial jurisd