To obtain interim relief for breach of confidentiality, a plaintiff must precisely identify the proprietary information in the pleadings; general statements are insufficient, and information existing in the public domain cannot be protected under the doctrine of confidentiality.

P.C.

. The present application for interim reliefs came up for consideration, as also for confirmation of ex-parte ad-interim order dated 12/10/2022, granted by this Court. The defendants filed their reply affidavits and the plaintiff filed its rejoinder affidavit and therefore, the pleadings were complete. The defendants invoked the first proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for vacating the ex-parte ad- interim order, on the ground that the plaintiff had indulged in suppression of material facts from this Court. It was also alleged on behalf of the defendants that the relevant material, as well as the correct position of law, was not brought to the notice of this Court while obtaining the ex-parte ad-interim order on12/10/2022.

2. Mr. Khandekar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, apart from reiterating submissions made before this Court when the said order was passed, submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants in their reply affidavits and the oral statements made on their behalf, did not demonstrate any ground for vacating the ad-interim order under first the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded breach of confidentiality on the part of defendant Nos.2 and 3, as they are ex-employees of the plaintiff. As such, pleadings are for a quia timet action wherein the plaintiff apprehends misuse of its confidential information by the defendants. It is submitted that in the context of such action initiated by the plaintiff, it is not expected that each and every detail of the confidential information is placed before the Court, because the confidentiality of the same would then be diluted.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the pleadings in the plaint, application for interim reliefs and rejoinder affidavit to contend that the ex-parte ad-interim order deserved to be confirmed. It was submitted that the execution of the ex-parte ad-interim order has resulted in material now being available to the Court to verify as to the extent of breach of confidentiality on the part of the defendants, particularly defendant Nos.2 and 3.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff refuted the contentions raised in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants. On the specific stand taken by the defendants that the details of connection flanges were already in public domain in the form of a patent granted in the United States of America with regard to water filtration technology, which had already expired, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the details stated in the rejoinder affidavit would clearly indicate the striking differences in the drawing pertaining to the aforesaid patent and the original drawing in which the plaintiff is claiming copyright, which is at page 72 alongwith the plaint. On the aspect of applicability of Section 52(1)(w) of the Copyrights Act, 1957 , the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the aforesaid ground raised on behalf of the defendants was completely misplaced because in the present case, the plaintiff is specifically claiming copyright in the original drawing and therefore, the said provision pertaining to the making of three dimensional object is wholly inapplicable. It was further submitted that the defendants are not justified in alleging that to stifle competition or to harass the defendants, the allegations pertaining to forgery and of fabricating documents have been made. It is also denied on behalf of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 and 3 can claim right to use acquired knowledge, expertise and also skill gained over a period of time when their actions are in clear breach of confidentiality, as both the said defendants were ex-employees of the plaintiff and now they are indulging in using such knowledge gained in confidence, in order to cause loss to the plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that consid