A client list does not constitute confidential information unless it possesses economic value; mere knowledge does not confer proprietary rights, and the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction.

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

I.A. 48682/2024 (Application under order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC)

1. The present application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereafter „CPC‟] has been filed on behalf of the applicant/ plaintiff herein, seeking grant of ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

FACTUAL CONTEXT

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case as set out in the plaint and the present application are that the Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at 5, Ground Floor, Gorishanker Market, Pant Nagar, New Delhi- 110014. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of event management services, providing end-to-end corporate event solutions, including air tickets, transportation, branding, and activation services, among others. Over the years, the Plaintiff has managed events for prominent clients such as Intel, Oracle, HP, and the Taj Group, establishing itself as a reputed name in the event management industry.

3. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who were its former employees, acted in collusion with Defendants Nos. 5 and 6, i.e. the entities incorporated by Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 during their employment with the Plaintiff, to hijack its business and clientele. Defendant No. 1 Sh. Deepak Gupta, employed by the Plaintiff from 2017 to September 2020, subsequently started his own event-related business and became a key vendor for the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 Sh. Harshdeep Saini, Defendant No. 3 Mohd. Sazid Khan and Defendant No. 4 Smt. Giggan Saini senior held positions within the Plaintiff‟s company, with Defendant No. 2 also serving as an Additional Director. They abruptly resigned on June 21, 2024, without providing reasons, despite requests from the Plaintiff‟s Managing Director to reconsider the same.

4. The Plaintiff alleges that after their resignations, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 engaged in competing business activities and diverted Signature Not Verified business opportunities from the Plaintiff. For instance, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant No. 3 had organized an event for its client, I-Ten Media Private Limited, involving revenue of ₹10,00,000/- and another event previously managed by the Plaintiff worth ₹30,00,000/-. Moreover, Defendant No. 1 allegedly submitted highly inflated bills with the collusion of Defendants Nos. 2 to 4. Upon withholding payment after scrutiny, Defendant No. 1 approached Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., a major client of the Plaintiff, creating undue pressure on the Plaintiff to settle the matter.

5. It has also been alleged by the plaintiff herein that Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 incorporated competing entities, Defendants Nos. 5 and 6, in 2023 and 2024, with the intent to poach its clientele and business. These acts, according to the Plaintiff, constituted a breach of confidentiality and non-compete agreements signed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 also used its intellectual property and goodwill to organize events for its established clients, thereby causing financial loss and damage to its reputation. The Plaintiff also claims to have organized significant events post-COVID, including Oracle's “Dev-Live 2024” event, generating revenue of ₹2,91,39,828/- which highlights the scale of its business operations and the alleged loss caused by the Defendants‟ actions.

6. Thus, the Plaintiff has moved this Court seeking an order of ad- interim ex-parte injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from engaging in activities that infringe upon the Plaintiff's intellectual property, breach confidentiality and non-compete agreements, and divert the Plaintiff's business and clientele.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT Submissions on Behalf of the Plaintiff

7. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff argues that the present application seeking an interim ex-parte injunction has been