Mere apprehension of interference with legal rights does not entitle the applicant for an order of injunction.

R.Banumathi, J. The plaintiff Company-M/s. Polaris Software Lab Ltd., is a software Company in India, having its offices all-over the country and also through out the world. According to the plaintiff Company, it has taken several steps in its business for rapid growth of Software Industries. The plaintiff Company engaged the services of the defendants, whose services were terminated in the month of April, 2003. Now temporary injunction is sought for restraining the defendants from committing any act in breach of the Undertaking dated 25.4.2002;

ii. restraining the defendant from divulging any information and confidential information and maintaining confidentiality;

iii. Also restraining them from giving out any adverse publicity to the media. Earlier by order of this Court, dated 17.4.2003, ex parte interim order of injunction was granted.

2. The details of the Original Applications is as noted below:

O.A.374 of 2003 Interim injunction from disclaiming any confidential

information to, third party.

Interim injunction granted by common order on 17.4.2003

O.A.373 of 2003 For interim injunction restraining the respondent from

committing any act in breach of undertaking dated 25.4.2002

O.A.375 of 2003 For interim injunction from giving out any adverse publicity to the media.

Interim injunction granted.

O.A.376 of 2003 For interim injunction from committing any act in breach of the undertaking.

Interim injunction granted.

O.A.377 of 2003 For interim injunction restraining the respondent, from

disclosing any confidential information to third party.

O.A.378 of 2003 For interim injunction from giving out any adverse publicity to the media.

3. In all these applications, we are concerned with the common points:

Is the covenant embodied in the Appointment and Undertaking can be enforced during the post service period and after the termination of services of the defendants:

Since this common point for determination arises in all the applications, all the applications were heard together and disposed of by this Common Order.

Plaintiff’s Case

4. Plaintiff Company has appointed Harpal Singh Duga, (Defendant in C.S.No.310 of 2003) as Director strategic Initiatives. Likewise, Suren Khirwadkar (Defendant in C.S.No.311 of 2003) was appointed as Director Marketing & Sales with effect from 10.4.2002 for a period of three years with annual salary of nearly Rupees Sixty lakhs and other benefits. Like in a case of contract of employment, at the time when the defendants were appointed, they have given a Letter of Undertaking to sign Confidentiality Agreement, Non-disclosure Agreements. Defendants have also undertaken that during the period of employment, they would not work directly or indirectly for any other person. They have also undertaken to bestow their undivided attention to the plaintiff Company.

5. Owing to differences and alleging that the defendants have not discharged certain obligations and further alleging that their conduct is unethical and irresponsible, they were terminated from employment with effect from 9.4.2003. Alleging that the defendants had privy to highest confidentiality of the plaintiff Company and details of business, the plaintiff Company claims that the defendants are under obligation to maintain confidentiality in respect of the information and negotiations which the defendants have knowledge. According to the applicant/plaintiff, if any such information is published or the confidential information is divulged, it would cause serious, irreparable hardship to the plaintiff Company. Claiming that the prima facie case and the balance of convenience are in their favour, plaintiff Company has filed application for grant of interim reliefs

(i) restraining defendants from committing any act in breach of Undertaking;

(ii) restraining the defendants from disclosing any confidential information;

(iii) restraining them from giving out any adverse publicity to the media.

Defendants’ Case:

6. Denying the averments in the plaint and in the affida

Click Here to Read the rest of this document