Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S NURTURE AGTECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIPHOS HOUSE, C D MARG
11TH ROAD, KHAR(WEST)
MUMBAI-400052 HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT SAKTI STATESMAN
10TH FLOOR, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR VIKAS CHANDRA GUPTA …APPELLANT Digitally (BY SRI. B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR signed by SRI. THAMMAIAH H.N., ADVOCATE)
JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: AND:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1. MR N MOHAN REDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY NIMMALA AGED MAJOR R/O 4-2-522 POLICE HOUSING COLONY NEAR MAMTA MEDICAL COLLEGE KHANAPURAM HAWELI KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002
2. M/S AGRICAPITA INNOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H.NO.6-55/6, WARANGAL X ROAD MARUTHI NAGAR, RD NO.4, KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. MR ATUL KUMAR SINGH S/O HARI KISHAN SING KAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.005, D BLOCK SAGAR PREMIUM TOWER (NEAR JK HOSPITAL)
SHIRDI PURAM KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH INDIA-462042
4. MR SAHIL WALI S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR H.NO.6-55/6 WARRANGAL X ROAD MARUTHI NAGAR RD NO.4, KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002
5. SMT HARSHINI MUPPANI W/O MR N MOHAN REDDY AGED MAJOR H.NO.6-55/6 WARANGAL X ROAD MARUTHI NAGAR RD NO.4, KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.29.11.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.26612/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-22), REJECING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.26612/2022 on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the said application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondents - defendants was dismissed by the trial court.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.K.Sampath Kumar for the appellant and leaned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the appellant -plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs as hereunder:-
(1) Pass an order of PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, its employees, agents, contractors, consultants, partners or any other persons/entity claiming through or under them from, directly or indirectly, accessing, copying, sharing or using in any manner, the confidential data/proprietary information/material, information pertaining to client and client relationships, or any trade secrets that belongs to the plaintiff company.
(2) Pass an order of MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the Defendants to deliver up to the Plaintiffs, any and all copies of the confidential data/proprietary information/material or any trade secrets, in any form, that is directly or indirectly stored or in their possession;
(3) Direct an enquiry into the losses caused by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants and further direct them to pay to the Plaintiff, monetary damages for the quantum of damage caused by the Defendants to the Plaintiff;
(4) Direct the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the cost of the suit;
(5) Grant such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem it and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. The said suit is being contested by the respondents -defendants. Along with the suit, the appellant - plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. In the first instance, the Trial Court passed an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction dated 18.10.2022 restraining the respondents - defendants, its employees, agents its employees, agents, contractors, consultants, partners or any other persons/entity claiming through or under them from, directly or indirectly, accessing, copying, sharing or using in any manner, the confidential data/proprietary information/material, information pertaining to client and client relationships, or any trade secrets that belongs to the plaintiff company.
5. The respondents - defendants having entered appearance, they not only filed the written statement but also filed objections to the application I.A.No.1 and after hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing I.A.No.1 and thereby vacating the ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction, aggrieved by which, appellant-plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
7. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that during the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the respondents - defendants specifically contended that there was no material produced by the appellant - defendant as regards the nature of information in respect of which the appellant - plaintiff sought an order of temporary injunction against the respondents - defendants. Under these circumstances, the appellant - plaintiff filed an affidavit on 19.11.2022 enclosing the copy of the Forensic report prepared by Deloitte purporting to contain the information as regards the specific details of the information in respect of which temporary injunction was sought for by the appellant - plaintiff. In this context, it is relevant to state that though the trial court has referred to the aforesaid Deloitte report at paragraph No.25 of the impugned order, the Trial Cour
