Contempt proceedings require clear evidence of willful disobedience of court orders, and factual disputes should be resolved in the appropriate civil proceedings, not through contempt.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The petition is filed praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for their alleged willful disobedience of order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal from Order No. 145 of 2018. According to the petitioner, the respondents have been restrained from using the confidential information/ software/know-how and business secrets in manufacturing machinery.

2. It is a case where some of the respondents were originally in employment of the petitioner, a Private Limited Company and during their employment, they became acquainted with several aspects of the business including technical aspect, which according to the petitioner is highly specialized technology. However, in breach of their agreement, when they parted and opened another company, they used the same technology to manufacture their machinery. For such breach, the petitioner filed Commercial Trademarks Civil Suit No. 31 of 2017 [Sic-Commercial Civil Suit No. 321 of 2016)] in the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court passed order dated 09.03.2018 granting injunction in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in Appeal from Order No. 145 of 2018, which came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 25.07.2018, confirming the injunction granted by the Commercial Court.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner took this Court through the order passed by the Commercial Court as well as the order passed in Appeal from Order dated 25.07.2018 and submitted that this Court has passed CAV judgment in great detail and confirmed the order of the Commercial Court and therefore, the petitioner has also invoked Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The actions of the respondents would amount to breach of directions of this Court.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has argued that by the order passed by the Commercial Court, the respondents were prohibited from entering with the business deals, which would amount to sale of machinery which is built on the technology of the petitioner company.

3.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has emphasized that the technology of the petitioner was highly sophisticated and was developed by their principal company of Germany and the technology was in exclusive know only of the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 3 were the employees of the petitioner and during their employment, they were trained by the petitioner by incurring expenditure, even their travel to Germany.

3.3 It is submitted that after having gained all the knowledge and technology at the cost of the petitioner, the respondents have ditched the petitioner and started their own company. This company has straightaway lifted the technology of the petitioner and started marketing it.

3.4 It is submitted that in the process, the respondents, who were aware of the potential clients of the petitioner, they have stolen such clients from the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents were selling the same technology and machinery in the market came to the knowledge through their own clients when their clients had installed their machinery through the respondents, but as there was fault in machinery, the petitioner’s engineers were contacted and during their visit, they found that the technology used, the machinery installed and the software meant for running the machinery were identical to that of the petitioner.

3.5 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner therefore immediately took this Court to various documents annexed to the petition in the form of photographs and diagram to explain how the machinery installed by the respondents at the client’s place of the petitioner completely and totally resembled that of the petitioner. He laid emphasis on the fact that the display of parameters controlling the machinery were also written in German language, which makes it clear that the technology used by the respondents is tha