THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANENOUS APPEAL No.446 OF 2025 Mr. D.Narendar Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr.M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge in ARB.O.P.No.114 of 2025 on 10.11.2025 in a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said petition, the respondent prayed for an order of injunction for restraining the appellant herein from continuing her employment or engagement, in any capacity whatsoever, with a certain company which is a direct competitor of the respondent and/or with any other entity engaged in a business which is in competition with the respondent, until the disposal of the arbitral proceedings.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court restrained the petitioner from continuing or taking up employment in any capacity with other entity directly competing with the respondent for a period of three months from the date of that order or until further orders, whichever is earlier. The Trial Court also restrained the appellant/respondent from disclosing, sharing or using any confidential information, tenant information data, trade secrets or business data belonging to the respondent or its group companies.

3. The issue argued is whether the impugned order is contrary to section 27 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 as being in restraint of trade?

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant held a responsible position in the respondent-company and was hence privy to confidential information and trade secrets, divulgence of which would be to the detriment of the respondent. Admittedly, the appellant’s employment with the respondent came to an end on 21.10.2025 after the appellant handed over charge to her successor in the respondent company. The Court is informed that the appellant joined

5. The impugned order does not record the correct facts. We also find that at least three of the appellant’s mails to the respondent dated 17.10.2025, 18.10.2025 and 21.10.2025 were not disclosed to the Trial Court. These mails would indicate that the appellant was willing to negotiate the terms of her departure, including giving an undertaking that the appellant would not disclose any confidential information to any rival company.

6. The respondent failed to react to any of the mails sent by the appellant. The only mail sent by the respondent to the appellant was a legal notice dated 24.10.2025 which clearly records that the appellant tendered her resignation from the respondent-company on 29.09.2025. The second notice is invocation to the arbitration clause contained in Employment Agreement dated 08.07.2022.

7. Apart from the three mails not being disclosed to the Court and hence not being considered by the Court, we also find the ex parte ad interim relief to the respondent restraining the appellant from joining rival entity for three months to be drastic and contrary to the settled principles of law. In fact, we find that the Trial Court itself diluted the restraint by making the directions, subject to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

8. However, considering the concerns raised by the respondent in relation to disclosure of confidential information, we deem it fit to direct the appellant to give an undertaking to the trial Court in line with the appellant’s mail dated 17.10.2025. The matter has been made returnable tomorrow before the Trial Court. The appellant shall hence give an undertaking tomorrow itself. Nothing further remains in the appeal.

9. C.M.A. No.446 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly, allowed and disposed of. We make it clear that none of our observations shall cause any prejudice to the parties in the arbitral proceedi