1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4248 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3313 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2140 OF 2009 Mehar Karan Singh .. Appellant Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Saleh Doctor, Senior Counsel a/w Abhishek Khare i/by Khare Legal Chambers for appellant. Mr. N.H. Seervai, Senior Counsel a/w Arif Doctor and P.A. Kabadi i/by Doijode Asociate for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. March 10, 2010. P.C. 1. This intra court appeal arises from an ad-interim order dated 2 30/1/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 4248 of 2008 filed in Suit No. 3313 of 2008. The said suit has been filed by the present respondent-company against the appellant. 3. The Notice of Motion prays for the following substantial reliefs:- “(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit the Defendant be restrained by an order or temporary injunction of this Hon’ble Court from handing over/ divulging any of the confidential information/documents/software/knowledge in his possession/ knowledge (more particularly specified in para 17 of the Plaint) any other person/party; (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, the Defendant be ordered and directed to deposit the sum of Rs.68,59,955/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of payments till the deposit in this Hon’ble Court held by him in trust on behalf of 3 the Plaintiff.” However, by the impugned order, the following ad-interim relief has been granted, pending the Motion:- “5. At this stage, therefore, I am inclined to direct him to abide by the convenants but having due regard to the fact that the information, knowledge etc. acquired by the Defendant during the course of his employment would have limited relevance, I would direct him to abide by this condition for a period of 18 months from today.” 4. It is true that the ad-interim order does not disclose the reasons but it does state that lengthy arguments were advanced about the manner in which the defendant had allegedly committed breach of the service conditions and it would not be necessary to discuss the pros and cons of the same at the stage of ad-interim order. In this appeal equally lengthy arguments have been heard by us and with the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties we have gone through the pleadings. The appeal came up before this court for the first time on 4/8/2009 while the 4 impugned order is dated 30/1/2009 i.e. after about seven months and though the impugned ad-interim order is operative for a period of 18 months, by now more than 13 months’ period has lapsed. The Notice of Motion is still pending. It would be, therefore, appropriate that the parties are relegated to get the pending Motion decided by the learned trial Judge expeditiously. To state any reasons in this order, either way, may affect the final adjudication of the pending Notice of Motion and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this appeal by requesting the learned trial Judge to decide the pending Motion expeditiously. 5. Hence, the appeal is disposed with a request to the learned trial Judge to decide Notice of Motion No. 4248 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. We have recorded the assurance of both the sides to co-operate with the learned trial Judge for the disposal of the Motion within the specified period of eight weeks and that the parties would not seek unwarranted adjournments. Additional pleadings, if any, shall be completed within one week by the defendant and thereafter within one week by the plaintiff. 6. Liberty to apply jointly to the learned trial Court. 5 7. Notice of Motion No. 2140 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed as such. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)