IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Parthiban, J.
Lapiz Digital Services, A Division of Ultra Marine & Pigments Ltd., Rep. by its Accounts Manager – Applicant
Versus
Remitmed Heathcare Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and ors. – Respondents
Original Application No.895 of 2019 in Civil Suit No.584 of 2019
Decided On : 06-07-2021
Specific Relief Act - Section 41(h) - Companies Act, 1956 - Contract - Damages/compensation for wilful breach of confidence and loss caused - Interim injunction -Plaintiff is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 - It is a technology driven industrial entity, BPO service provider, offering publishing services, e-learning solutions, healthcare services, content services, e-commerce solutions, software solutions and related services, founded in the year 1999 with US Healthcare Business Processing Services to address then nascent BPO market in US and Europe - Applicant/plaintiff has a large client base, not only nationally, but also spreading across various countries abroad - Petitioner claims to enjoy a reputed position in business field vis-a-vis their clients - Second defendant was recruited as Deputy General Manager (Client Operations) by applicant/plaintiff-Company and he was put on probation for a period of one year and over-all pay package offered to him was to tune (Annual CTC) - Conditions for employment have been stated in appointment letter, which was duly signed by second respondent/second defendant at time of acceptance of offer - Whether injunction in terms in which it is framed should have been granted - Held, Court finds that there is some force in his submissions in that regard - When plaintiff has sought quantified damages against defendants for violating conditions of confidentiality agreement, applicant/plaintiff may not be entitled for grant of interim injunction as well - Question of grant of interim injunction in interregnum, may not arise, as above extracted Section 41(h) has provided efficacious relief - Therefore, on this ground also, this Court is of view that applicant/plaintiff-Company is not entitled for grant/continuation of interim injunction - Right of plaintiff-Company to claim damages against second defendant for his violation of conditions of confidentiality agreement, is not taken away and it is still open to plaintiff to claim damages even in respect of issues which are subject matter of consideration in present application - But injunction as such cannot be continued any further with reference to named schedule companies mentioned in plaint, as this Court finds that no case is made out for grant/continuation of interim injunction pending disposal of suit - Present O.A.No.895 of 2019 stands dismissed.
ORDER :
The above application has been filed by the plaintiff, pending disposal of the suit, seeking to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their agents, men, representatives, associates and assigns from in any manner interacting with, servicing, entering into contract, communicating, receiving payments and specifically from doing business with the applicant/plaintiff's customers/clients and in particular, the applicant/plaintiff's clients enumerated in the Schedule to the Judge's Summons in the application.
2. The suit has been filed for the following reliefs:
(b) to direct the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as damages/compensation for wilful breach of confidence and loss caused to the plaintiff;
(c) to direct the defendants to render a true and faithful account of the earnings by the defendants by servicing the plaintiff's clients including (i) Physicians Management Group LLC, 338 Cortland St, Believille, NJ 07109-3202, (ii) Absolute Healthcare, 139 North M Street, Tulare, CA 93274, and (iii) PractiCons, 213 N.Orange St, Suite F, Glendale, CA 91203 and their other places of work; and
(d) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
3. The brief facts which gave rise to the filing of the suit and the present application are stated hereunder:
(b) The second defendant was recruited as Deputy General Manager (Client Operations) by the applicant/plaintiff-Company on 12.05.2017 and he was put on probation on 03.07.2017 for a period of one year and over-all pay package offered to him was to the tune of Rs.16,63,908/- (Annual CTC). The conditions for employment have been stated in the appointment letter, which was duly signed by the second respondent/second defendant at the time of acceptance of the offer on 03.07.2017.
(c) The second defendant's employment with the plaintiff-Company was subsequently confirmed and the confirmation letter was also issued to him on 03.01.2018 with the same terms and conditions issued along with the Probation Order. From November 2018, the second defendant was also given an increment and his pay package was also revised. In the course of his duties, the second defendant was involved in day-to-day direct interactions with the clients of the plaintiff-Company in India and abroad. In the course of transactions that the plaintiff had with their clients, the second defendant became privity to the confidential information relating to the business and also came to be acquainted with the clients of the plaintiff. As an employee of the plaintiff-Company, the second defendant has been in constant interaction with the clients of the plaintiff-Company as part of his assigned duties.
(d) The second defendant, during the period of his employment with the plaintiff-Company, was also sent to the USA at the expense of the plaintiff-Company to have direct personal meeting and project transaction with
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.