Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
MHCC010045302018
Presented on : 05.04.2018
Registered on : 03.08.2018
Decided on : 25.10.2023
Duration : 05-Y.02-M.22-D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT OF MUMBAI
S.C. SUIT NO. 1962 of 2018
Exh. - 14
The Supreme Industries Limited
Having its registered office at 612,
Raheja Chambers, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400 021
Mr. Raju Kedar Prasad. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Vikas Chandrakant Amale
Age: Not known
At Arun Nagar CI, Post- Nangalwadi,
Tal- Mahad, Dist.- Raigad – 402 309,
State- Maharashtra .… Defendant
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(C.R. NO.1)
DATE: 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
-: Appearances: -
The learned Adv. Sachin Joshi for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
-- 1 of 8 --
2 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 25th day of October, 2023)
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for seeking reliefs
inter-alia;
a.) It be declared that the act of the defendant is contrary to the
execution of agreement and letter of appointment dated
27/01 /2017, thus it is illegal;
b.) By a perpetual injunction order the defendant be restrained
from in any manner selling, transferring disposing of,
alienating or creating any third-party interest or parting with
secrecy of the plaintiff’s property in any manner whatsoever;
c.) To pay damages to the tune of Rs.8 lacs together with interest
thereon @ 24% p.a., till its full realization;
d.) For compensation of Rs.1 lacs and
e.) Penalty of Rs.1 lacs against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: -
The plaintiff is the limited company, incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiffs carry on business
at Mumbai. The defendant was appointed as ‘Production Supervisor’ for
Cross Laminated Film Division at Silvassa Plant of the company
vide
appointed letter dated 27/01/2017. The defendant after going through
and well understanding the contents thereof in the said appointment
letter, signed and returned duplicate copy of appointment letter to the
plaintiffs. In addition to same, the defendant has also executed a Non-
Solicitation/ Confidentiality agreement with the plaintiff.
-- 2 of 8 --
3 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
3. Since the plaintiff is engaged in a highly competitive
industry, and thus it was important to protect their trade secrets
confidential information and other proprietary information. The
defendant agreed and undertook not to use or improperly disclose the
confidential information to any third party. However, the defendant
has not complied with the terms and conditions laid down in the said
confidentiality agreement, in view of his appointment to the post of
production supervisor.
4. It is alleged that, the defendant joined the plaintiff’s
company on 27/01/2017 and thereafter immediately in the month of
November, 2017 left the plaintiff’s company without any notice and
reason. The defendant has joined the competitor namely ‘M/s. Gold
Star Polymer Ltd.,’ of the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff shared design of Equipment’s, Dyes, Moulds of
which all secret and important information is available with defendant.
The defendant in violation of the terms and conditions of the
Solicitation agreement disclose all these information to the competitor
company of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant had committed clear
breach of contract of the terms and conditions of the Solicitation
agreement. The defendant had failed to discharge its obligation as
required by the said agreement. In addition to it, the defendant cause
losses to the plaintiffs by resigning plaintiff’s services without any
reason and has joined the services of the plaintiff’s competitors and
disclosed secrecy of the plaintiffs. Thus, it causes harassment, monetary
loss and business loss to the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.
-- 3 of 8 --
4 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
6. In-spite of service, the defendant failed to appear. Hence,
the suit proceeded ex-parte against him
vide an order dated
09/12/2019
7. In support of its claim, the plaintiff filed affidavit of
examination -in chief of Raju Prasad Kedar (PW1) at Exh.6. Through
this witness, the plaintiff got proved documents such as the
appointment letter and acknowledgment of the same by defendant
(Exh.8); Non-Solicitation / Confidentiality agreement dated
11/06/2017 (Exh.9); office copy of legal notice dated 14/12/2017
along with postal track report (Exh.10) and board resolution (Exh.11).
The plaintiffs filed evidence closing pursis at Exh.12.
8. Heard the learned advocate for plaintiff. He also filed
written notes of argument at Exh.13. Perused the record.
9. Following points arise for my determination, to which, I
have recorded my findings with reasons as under: -
Sr.
No
Points Determination
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree
of declaration that the act of the defendant is
contrary to execution of agreement and letter
of appointment dated 27/01/2017 and as
such it is illegal?
No
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
of perpetual injunction as claimed? No
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for sum of
Rs.8 lacs towards the damages with interest
thereon @ 24% p.a., till its full realisation?
No
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
-- 4 of 8 --
5 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
compensation of Rs.1 lacs and penalty of Rs.1
lacs as claimed form the defendant?
No
5. What order and decree As per final order.
REASONS
As to Points no.1 to 4: -
10 The learned advocate Shri. Joshi for the plaintiff argued
that the defendant was appointed as ‘Production supervisor’ on
27/01/2017. He has executed information Solicitation agreement in
favour of the plaintiff’s company thereby, agreed not to disclose any
confidential information, secrets and other proprietary information
acquired through the plaintiff’s company to others. However, the
defendant acts contrary to the terms and conditions of the Solicitation
agreement and by resigning the plaintiff’s company, joined its
competitors ‘M/s. Gold Star Polymer Ltd.,’ and thereby disclosed all the
secrets and necessary information to the Competitors company and had
caused great losses to the plaintiff’s company in terms of business and
money. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay damages,
compensation and penalty to the plaintiff’s company. The suit is well
within jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the suit may kindly be decreed.
11. In the case of Harash Vardhan Vs. Union of India Law
Finder the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at para no.4 held
that,
“It is well settled that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and
would have to stand on his own legs. Merely because the defendant
remained ex-parte and not filed any written statement, the claim of the
plaintiff could not be decreed straightway.”
-- 5 of 8 --
6 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
12. Plaintiff has examined PW1 Raju. He deposed as per the
averments of the plaint. Thus, I do not want to reproduce the same to
avoid the repetition. Herein, it is to be seen that the plaintiff levelled
allegation against the defendant that the defendant has disclosed secret
information, necessary information and proprietary information to the
competitive company ‘M/s. Gold Star Polymer Ltd.,’. However, no
cogent evidence to that effect is adduced by the plaintiff to show that
what type of information has been disclosed by the defendant whereby
it had sustained losses in its business. Merely, by saying that the
defendant had left services of plaintiffs and joined the services of other
company cannot be said that he has shared information i.e., alleged
information pertaining to the business of plaintiff’s company to the
other company. Suit cannot be basis on assumption and presumption.
The plaintiff has to lead specific evidence to that effect. Nothing on
record to substantiate that what type of losses in the business has been
caused to the plaintiff’s company. The plaintiff’s company has to show
due to production of similar products by the competitive company, the
business of the plaintiff’s company is affected or the customers of the
plaintiff’s company has been shifted to the competitor company after
joining of the defendant to the Competitor company. No account of the
plaintiff’s company has been filed on record to show that after giving
resignation by the defendant and joining the competitor company, the
plaintiffs company has suffered losses in its business due to the
production of similar products by the competitor company. Therefore,
for want of such type of cogent evidence the plaintiffs failed to prove its
case for the reliefs claimed. Hence, my answer to points no. 1 to 4 are
in the negative.
-- 6 of 8 --
7 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
As to point no.5: -
13. In view of above discussion, I pass following order:
ORDER
Suit is dismissed.
Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge,
Date: 25/10/2023. City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai.
(C R No.1)
Dictated on :25/10/2023
Transcribed on :26/10/2023
Signed on :27/10/2023
-- 7 of 8 --
8 Exp. Jud in Suit 1962 of 2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 27.10.2023 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G.I.)
Mrs. V.V.Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
Shri Virendra D. Kedar
(Court Room No.01)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
25.10.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
27.10.2023
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 27.10.2023
-- 8 of 8 --