1 upa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.204 OF 2006 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.204 OF 2006 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.204 OF 2006 Granton Advertising Pvt. Ltd. ).. Petitioners Versus Abraham Mathai and another ).. Respondents Mr.Naushad Engineer i/b.with Ms.Vaishali Dholakia i/b.Ashok Purohit for the Petitioners. Mr.C.K. Tripathi for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 9TH AUGUST 2006 DATED : 9TH AUGUST 2006 DATED : 9TH AUGUST 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking interim reliefs as prayed for in the Petition. The Petitioners are engaged in developing marketing strategies for its clients, including by using "privilege cards". According to the Petitioners, they had employed the Respondents as Branch Managers, Delhi on the basis of the agreement at Exhibit "A" to the Plaint. The Petitioners contend that the agreement was to be effective from 1st October 2000 till either party terminated it by one month’s notice in writing. Both the Respondents have resigned from the employment of the Petitioners on 6th February 2006 thereby terminating the agreement. According to the Petitioners, the Respondents are utilising the data base over which the 2 Petitioners have a proprietary right in order to set up a new business. The Petitioners have described the information which is confidential and over which they claim proprietary right in paragraph 4E of the Petition. 2. The Respondents contend that they are not employed with Mac Rock Advertising Pvt. Ltd. as alleged in the Petition and they have not used the data base of the Petitioners. A submission has been made that the Petition is too vague and no injunction can be granted against the Respondents as there is no specific document or averment showing as to what is the data base of the Petitioners or the marketing strategies adopted by them. 3. Reliance is placed by the Petitioners and the Respondents on the judgments in the case of Baker vs. Gibbons and others, (Chancery Division) The Weekly Law (Chancery Division) The Weekly Law (Chancery Division) The Weekly Law Reports, May 19, 1972, page 693 Reports, May 19, 1972, page 693 Reports, May 19, 1972, page 693 and Mr.Diljeet Titus vs. Mr.Alfred Adebare, decided by the Delhi High Court in IA IA IA Nos.6695 and 7477 of 2004 in CS(OS) No.1109 of 2004 and Nos.6695 and 7477 of 2004 in CS(OS) No.1109 of 2004 and Nos.6695 and 7477 of 2004 in CS(OS) No.1109 of 2004 and IA No.7477 of 2004 in CS (OS) No.1257 of 2004 IA No.7477 of 2004 in CS (OS) No.1257 of 2004 IA No.7477 of 2004 in CS (OS) No.1257 of 2004 and Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt Ltd. vs. Zaheer Khan, 2006 2006 2006 AIR SCW 1751 AIR SCW 1751 AIR SCW 1751. 4. In my view, it would be appropriate to injunct the Respondents from using the same marketing strategies 3 which are adopted by the Petitioners to promote the products of the Petitioners’ clients. This injunction would continue to operate for a period of four weeks after the Arbitral Tribunal is set up. 5. The Respondents can apply for the modification of the order before the Arbitral Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents requests for stay of this order. Stay refused.