Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 337/22
KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY INDIA PVT LIMITED Vs. MS RAISHA
KAPOOR
10.01.2023
Present : Sh. Ramnesh Jeradha and Ms. Taru Gupta, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
Sh. A K Thakur, Sh. Rishi Raj and Sh. Sujeet Kumar, Ld.
Counsel for defendant.
WS has been filed with the delay of 127 days. ld. Counsel for
plaintiff has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay. Copy
supplied.
Put up for reply/arguments/order on NDOH.
Rejoinder to application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC
filed. Copy supplied.
Arguments on the application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2
CPC heard. Put up for orders at 4PM.
(AMARDEEP KAUR)
CJ-01/PHC/ND/10.01.2023
At 4PM
Present : None.
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 CPC.
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is a leading
supplier of various endoscopes and related products and it possesses an
impeccable reputation in its field across the world. It is further submitted
Page no. 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
that the defendant was an employee of the company employed vide
agreement dated 22.03.2019 and her services were terminated on
14.03.2022.
2. It is submitted that pursuant to the termination, the defendant has
made several communications to the employees of the company based in
India as well as to its parent company located in Germany, advancing
threats and creating unlawful pressure upon the company to revoke the
termination and extort unlawful money. It is submitted that the defendant
has also threatened to spread bad publicity/ defame the plaintiff company
on various social media platform including LinkedIn with an intention to
cause wrongful loss to the reputation of the plaintiff.
3. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has a strong apprehension
that the defendant has also committed data theft and has unlawfully
accessed confidential information of the plaintiff company which she
intends to use in a malafide manner to cause monetary loss to the plaintiff
company.
4. The plaintiff has therefore sought that during the pendency of the
suit plaintiff among other things, be 1) restrained from acting in
furtherance to or disclosing any confidential information/
records/intellectual property of the plaintiff company to some third
person, 2) restrained from making any communication either directly or
Page no. 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
indirectly with any one including plaintiff organization which might have
a bearing upon its reputation, goodwill, business and operation, 3)
restrained from making any defamatory statement against the plaintiff
company or its employee on social media and 4) directed to surrender or
destroy all confidential information that the defendant might have
acquired during her employment with the plaintiff company. It is
submitted by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that if the defendant is not
restrained/ prohibited in the above said manner, the plaintiff company is
expected to suffer irreparable loss of goodwill/reputation.
5. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that the reliefs as
sought by the plaintiff in the present petition cannot be granted at this
stage since the reliefs sought is similar to the prayers of the main suit and
therefore allowing the present petition will amount to decreeing the
present suit in favour of the plaintiff without putting the averments made
in the plaint to trial. He has relied upon the judgment of State of UP &
Ors. vs. Ramsukhi Devi (2005) 9SCC 733 in support of his submissions.
6. He has further submitted that even otherwise, no grounds are made
out on merits to allow the present application since the plaintiff has failed
to point out even a single instance where the defendant has made any
defamatory averments against the company or its employees. He has
relied upon the judgment of TATA Sons Ltd. vs. Greenpeace international
(2011) SCC online Del 466 in support of his submissions. It is further
Page no. 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
submitted that the defendant being aggrieved by her wrongful termination
has merely shared her concern through emails and other communications
relied upon by the plaintiff and her sole intention is to defend her legal
rights against the acts of the plaintiff company and she does not intend to
cause any malafide harms or defame the plaintiff organization.
7. Heard. Record Perused.
8. It is a well settled law that for proving plaintiff to be entitled to an
interim injunction, the plaintiff has to prove three things:-
(i) That a strong prima facie case is made out in his favour.
(ii) That the balance of convenience also lies in his favour.
(iii) That the refusal of injunction will cause irreparable injury to
him.
9. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, prima facie case means that there is a
serious disputed question to be tried in the suit, and on facts before the
Court, there is probability of applicant to be entitled to the relief asked for.
10. Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt. It is no
part of the Court's function at this stage, to sift and weigh, the evidentiary
material filed along with pleadings to assess their probative value. The
only requirement is that whether the view taken as per the plaint and
Page no. 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
documents filed by the plaintiff is a possible view or not. [M. Gurudas V/s
Rasranjan (2006) 8 SCC 367].
11. As far as the point of irreparable injury is concerned, it is a settled
law that no injury is irreparable which can be adequately compensated by
way of damages and when there are other efficacious remedies available
to the applicant. [Kuldip Singh V/s Subhash Chandra Jain (AIR 2000 SC
1410), Maharawal Khewaji Trust V/s Baldev Dass (2004) 8 SCC 488].
12. Balance of convenience connotes comparative hardship or mischief
likely to be caused to either party in case of grant or refusal of the
injunction. [Dalpat Kumar V/s Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276)].
13. I have perused the contentions raised by the parties in light of the
relevant legal provisions.
14. While some of the reliefs as sought by the plaintiff through the
present application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC are similar to the
final prayers of the suit, the law in this regard is clear that such relief may
be allowed if extraordinary circumstances are made out. Honorable Apex
Court in judgement titled Deoraj V. State Of Maharashtra & Ors 2004
SC laid as follows:
“Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief
would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then
Page no. 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim
relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself;
for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there
would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner
though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases
the availability of a very strong prima facie case of a
standard much higher than just prima facie case, the
considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable
injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour
of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim
relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of
course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court
would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that
withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court
and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice
being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the
Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.”
15. Now in the present case, the plaintiff has sought in prayer no. 1 and
4, interim injunction against the defendant, restraining her from
using/disclosing any confidential information/trade secret which she
might have acquired during her employment with the plaintiff firm.
However, the plaint as well as the present application is completely silent
upon the nature and scope of the alleged confidential information, in
Page no. 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
absence of which it cannot be determined as to what information has to be
considered confidential, disclosure of which would then comprise breach
thereof. Further, whether any such knowledge was ever acquired by the
defendant during her employement with the plaintiff company or not is
also a matter of trial. Accordingly, no interim relief in this regard can be
granted at this stage.
16. Now in regards to prayers mentioned in clause no. 2 and 3 wherein
the plaintiff has sought protection against defamation/harm to goodwill,
this court is of the view that while there are no instances of clear
defamation/libel on part of the defendant i.e. there have been no instances
where the defendant has passed defamatory statements or posted
objectionable content on social media etc., the statements made by the
defendant in email dated 14.03.2022, whatsapp chats and linkedin post as
placed on record by the plaintiff company, justify the apprehension of the
plaintiff that defendant may resort to making such statements / disclosure
in public forum which may have a bearing upon the goodwill/reputation
of the plaintiff company. Therefore, a prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff is made out in the present facts.
17. Even otherwise, the relationship between the parties are sour and
disgruntled and the defendant has already filed a counter claim to avail
legal redressal of her grievances with the plaintiff company and therefore
while the matter is pending for litigation, the defendant cannot be allowed
Page no. 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
to discuss the same in open forum.
18. Further, no inconvenience will be caused to the defendant if she is
restrained from making any statement having bearing upon the goodwill/
reputation of the plaintiff company. It is also pertinent to mention here that
right to freedom of speech is also to be exercised with reasonable
restrictions and even otherwise, no person can be said to have a right to
pass defamatory statement against another. Accordingly, balance of
convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.
19. Further, if the defendant in pursuant to the apprehension of the
plaintiff company, resorts to making any defamatory statement, it will
certainly lead to irreparable damage to the goodwill of the plaintiff
company and the same cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
20. Accordingly, the present application under Order 39 rule 1 and
2 CPC is partly allowed. The defendant is restrained from making
any statement in regards to her employment, termination/resignation
and the pending dispute between parties on any public forum
including social media during the pendency of the present suit.
21. Now to come up for consideration of application for condonation
of delay in filing WS on 16.03.2023.
(AMARDEEP KAUR)
CJ-01/PHC/ND/10.01.2023
Page no. 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --