* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR +CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.473 OF 2025 % Dated 06.02.2026 # Between:

Karix Mobile Private Limited …Appellant AND OneXtel Limited and 3 Others …Respondents ! Counsel for the appellant: Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Narendar Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

^ Counsel for the respondent No.1: Mr.M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. Salmond & Heuston on The Law of Torts, Twenty-First Edition.

2. (1948) 65 R.P.C. 203

3. Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright (13thEdn.)

4. (1967) 2 All ER 415

5. (1967) 5 Reports of Patent and Design and Trade Mark Cases 149

6. (1999) Fleet Street Reports 235

7. (1981) RPC 1

8. (1966) All ER 721 at 759

9. (1983) 2 All E.R. 101

10. 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1243

11. 797 P.2d 1303 (Colo. App. 1990)

12. (1837) 6 Ad. & E. 438

13. 1967 SCC OnLine Sc 72

14. AIR 1946 Bom 423

15. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2480

16. 2006 SCC OnLine Del 638

17. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9140

18. MANU/MH/0406/2003

19. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD * * *

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.473 OF 2025

6^th February, 2026 Between Karix Mobile Private Limited …Appellant AND OneXtel Limited and 3 Others …Respondents Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Narendar Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr.M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (‘Trial Court’) whereby the Trial Court rejected the appellant/plaintiff’s Application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.2 - 4 from disclosing confidential information belonging to the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent No.1 and from utilizing the confidential information of the plaintiff.

2. The appellant’s I.A. was rejected on the ground that the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case or that the appellant will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is refused.

3. The appellant had filed the Suit seeking perpetual injunction, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits, and disclosure, etc., against the respondents/defendants. The appellant also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from soliciting the appellant’s existing clients and for a direction on the defendants to deliver up all confidential information belonging to the appellant which is in the possession of the respondents/defendants.

4. The Trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the appellant on 18.07.2025 restraining the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 from disclosing or using any confidential information of the appellant. The respondents entered appearance on 22.08.2025 and filed a counter affidavit to the interim application along with an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint to the appropriate Court. The appellant filed an application seeking leave to file rejoinder along with counter affidavit to the respondents’ Order VII Rule 10 application. The respondents’ Order VII Rule 10 application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 12.09.2025. The impugned order dismissing the appellant’s I.A., for temporary injunction, was passed on 06.10.2025.

Arguments on behalf of the Parties

5. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court erred in refusing to consider and mark the relevant documents including a mail dated 17.07.2025 which was crucial to the appellant’s case of breach of confidential information. Counsel urges that the confidential information divulged by the respondents, particularly by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.1, was information whic