THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR COMCA.NO.17 OF 2025 Sri P. Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri R. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Commercial Court Appeal arises out of an order dated 03.10.2024 allowing the respondents/plaintiffs’ I.A. granting temporary injunction for restraining the appellants/defendants from commercially exploiting or disseminating the proprietary confidential information or trade secrets of the respondents/plaintiffs from divulging the said confidential information which the defendants have gained access to owing to their past relationship with the plaintiffs.

2. The defendants (the respondents in the I.A. before the Commercial Court) are the appellants before us.

3. By the impugned order, the appellants/defendants were restrained from causing the breach of confidential information through commercial exploitation and dissemination of any proprietary confidential information of the respondents/plaintiffs.

4. The appellants/defendants are aggrieved by the absolute and blanket nature of the restraint.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the impugned order is vague, lacks material particulars and is contrary to the rights of the appellants/defendants from carrying on trade and also their fundamental right to carry on any trade or business as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

6. Senior Counsel further submits that the defendant No.1 worked with the plaintiff No.2 at the nascent stage of the plaintiff’s business. Senior Counsel submits that the plaintiff No.2 is a much bigger enterprise compared to the defendant No.3 but has unlawfully sought to stop the defendants’ business altogether. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to particularize the confidential information and trade secrets which form the essential cause of action in the Suit. Senior Counsel further submits that there is no trade secret involved in the manufacturing process of the oil seals and the entire procedure for manufacturing is available in the public domain.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs relies on the impugned order to urge that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Delhi High Court in an earlier Suit i.e., CS (Comm) No.318 of 2019 (renumbered as COS No.19 of 2022) filed by the plaintiffs found several incriminating materials in the premises of the defendants. The material includes lists of customers, boxes, CDs and mails which would show that the defendant No.1 has used the confidential information and trade secrets of the plaintiffs in an unauthorized manner. Senior Counsel further submits that the defendants have obtained orders from the plaintiffs’ customers by using their association with the plaintiffs.

8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

9. The prayers in the plaint in the Suit (COS No.19 of 2022) filed by the respondents in the present Appeal is for permanent injunction on the defendants (appellants) from breaching confidential information and fiduciary duty, misappropriation of unlawful solicitation of clients, breach of contract, unfair competition damages and delivery up, trade secrets. The prayers in the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs are relevant for outlining our view as to whether the defendants/appellants require any protection at this stage.

10. The prayers in the I.A.No.213 of 2022 are set out below:

“a) From commercial exploitation and further dissemination of any proprietary confidential information or trade secrets of the petitioners/plaintiffs through any medium or modes;

b) From developing, manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, advertising, or any other acts in furtherance of the release of any product which pertains