The consolidation of suits is justified when both involve common issues of fact and law, ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency in rulings.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J. (Oral)

This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.

IA No.12565/2021 (exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exception.

IA No.12564/2021

This application is filed by the plaintiffs seeking leave to file additional documents.

Learned counsel for the defendants state that the defendants have no objection to the same.

The application is allowed.

IA No.11456/2021

1. This application is filed under section 24(b) CPC for transfer of the suit bearing CS(COMM) No.272/2021 pending in the court of learned District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to be heard alongwith the present suit.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:

"A. A decree for Damages to the tune of Rs.3,80,50,000/- in favour of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, inter alia for:

(i) Damage caused by decline in performance of Plaintiff No.1 post 2018 due to lack of focus of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 on the business and growth prospects of Plaintiffs' business (as was their contractual and fiduciary obligation towards the Plaintiffs).

(ii) Damage caused by misappropriation of confidential data including but not restricted no trade secrets, client lists, proprietary data etc, and using the same to clandestinely running a competing concern, to derive unscrupulous gains.

(iii) Damage caused by transfer of business opportunities, poaching of clients and employees resulting in huge reputational and financial loss in terms of loss of profits, loss of business opportunities, loss of human and financial capital of the Plaintiffs.

B. A decree of Rendition of Accounts against Defendant No.1 for his outstanding share of liability as per the accounts of Plaintiff No. 4, as on the date of his resignation.

C. A decree of Disgorgement of Profits against Defendants for earning illegal gains by setting up and running Defendant No.4 in the scheme and Design of Plaintiff No.1 and diverting/ siphoning off business from Plaintiff No.1 to Defendant No.4.

D. A Decree of Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants from using the proprietary data, client list, trade secrets etc. of the Plaintiffs.

E. A Decree of Mandatory Injunction, restraining the Defendants from using the name "Essencia Outsourcing Private Limited" or carrying on a like business under any other name, until a proper forensic audit of all defendants is completed and all proprietary date/trade secretes/client lists etc. belonging to the plaintiffs are restituted.

F. For a Decree of Prohibitory Injunction, restraining the Defendants from poaching any of the clients or employees of the Plaintiffs, or using any proprietary data, client list, trade secrets etc. belonging to/pertaining to the plaintiffs."

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in 2007 plaintiffs No.2 and 3 set up a company (plaintiff No.1) which is engaged in the business of outsourcing domestic business process management services. In 2013, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was arrived at between plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.1. The business was also being carried out through a partnership firm, namely M/s SIGMA (plaintiff No.4), which was constituted on 01.06.2011 with plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.3 and Mr.Vivek Manchanda. In 2014, Mr.Vivek Manchanda submitted his resignation and plaintiff No.4 firm was reconstituted. Defendant No.1 was inducted as a partner and started drawing salary as a consultant of plaintiff No.1. In 2017-18, defendant No.1 was made an Associate Director of plaintiff No.1.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 persuaded the plaintiffs to in