SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 4561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Duraiswamy, J.
Lister Technologies Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Mukundhan Dakshinamurthi and Ors. - Respondents
O.A. No. 276 of 2014 and A. Nos. 2425 and 2426 of 2014
Decided On : 03-09-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N.V. Srinivasan
For the Respondents: R. Sankaranarayanan

Headnote:

Contract Act – Section 27 – Specific Relief Act – Section 41 – Injunction – Applicant-M/s. Lister Technologies has filed O.A. No. 276 of 2014 for Injunction restraining the First Respondent from approaching the customers of the Applicant-Company and interfacing in any manner with or attempting or diverting any contract or business opportunity of the Applicant-Company and also solicit business from or contract for any business purpose in any manner whatsoever, which competes directly or indirectly with the Applicant-Company. A. No. 2425 of 2014 has been filed by the Applicant-Company to pass an Order suspending the Business activities of the Second Respondent-Company. – Held, Though the First Respondent informed about the resignation through an e-mail on 16.9.2013, which was also accepted by the Applicant on 17.9.2013 and that he was relieved from the employment by e-mail dated 8.11.2013 with effect from 15.11.2013, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Applicant has not initiated arbitration so far. – Having obtained an Order of Injunction before this Court on 27.6.2014, still they have not initiated the Arbitration. – The Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents reported in Firm Ashok Traders and another v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and others, 2004 (2) CTC 208 (SC); and Reena Silicate Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Ltd. & anr., AIR 2006 Mad. 266, squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. – Since the Applicant had failed to establish that the First Respondent offered services to the clients of the Applicant and solicit business from them, the Applicant cannot be granted an Order of Injunction. – Even if the loss sustained by the Applicant is proved, the damage is capable of being ascertained in terms of money and therefore, an Order of Injunction cannot be granted. – Second Respondent is a running concern. – The suspension of the Business activities would infringe on the Fundamental Right of the First Respondent. – Applications Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. The Applicant-M/s. Lister Technologies has filed O.A. No. 276 of 2014 for Injunction restraining the First Respondent from approaching the customers of the Applicant-Company and interfacing in any manner with or attempting or diverting any contract or business opportunity of the Applicant-Company and also solicit business from or contract for any business purpose in any manner whatsoever, which competes directly or indirectly with the Applicant-Company. A. No. 2425 of 2014 has been filed by the Applicant-Company to pass an Order suspending the Business activities of the Second Respondent-Company.

2. A. No. 2426 of 2014 has been filed by the Applicant-Company seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner as a Receiver, who with the assistance of the technically competent person enters the Business premises of the Respondents and inspect the computer system to find out the details of the confidential information of the Applicant-Company removed unauthorisedly by the First Respondent and produce the same before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. N.V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. S. Sankaranarayanan, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

4. According to the Applicant, they are engaged in the business of developing software solutions across varied industry verticals such as manufacturing, health care, publishing, internet, e-commerce, telecom and education. According to the Applicant, they called the First Respondent for an interview and appointed him as a Project Manager, after being satisfied about his credentials and work experience in the relevant area of business of the Applicant. An Offer Letter was issued on 10.4.2012 to the First Respondent. The First Respondent accepted the Letter of Offer of employment on 7.5.2012. The First Respondent entered into an Agreement known as "Non-Disclosure Agreement" and appended his signature as a proof of his acceptance of the terms and conditions contained therein on 4.5.2012. On 15.11.2013, the First Respondent signed a Letter of Undertaking known as "Employee Undertaking". On 16.9.2013, the First Respondent tendered his resignation and he was relieved from the services with effect from 15.11.2013. The First Respondent was in service with effect from 4.5.2012 to 15.11.2013.

5. According to the Applicant, after relieving the First Respondent from the services of the Applicant-Company, the Applicant came to know that the First Respondent incorporated the Second Respondent-Company on 8.11.2013 (i.e.) during the tenure of his employment with the Applicant-Company as per the records of the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. According to the Applicant, the First Respondent is a Promoter-Director of the Second Respondent-Company. The Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 4.5.2012 was in vogue when the Second Respondent-Company was incorporated by the First Respondent. According to the Applicant, as per Clause 8 of the Non-Disclosure Agreement entered into between the Applicant-Company and the First Respondent, the First Respondent, during the employment or association with the Company and for a period of two years after his employment/association with the Company whether voluntarily or involuntarily will not on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or entity directly or indirectly engage or solicit or sell products or services that are similar to or directly compete with the products or services of the Company provided at any time during the one year prior to his termination of employment with the Company. Since the First Respondent had incorporated the Second Respondent-Company even prior to he being relieved from the services, in which the business offered is similar in nature as that of the Applicant, he was privy to all the information of customer data of the Applicant-Company and used the same for promoting the Second Respondent-Company in breach of the contractual terms entered into.

6. According to the Applicant, the First Respondent has been










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top