abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 843 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2006 Roche Diagnostics India Private Limited .. Appellant V/s Ms. Mala Aswani .. Respondent Mr.Haider Toor with Mr.Harshad Dalal i/b DSK Legal for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Kantawala with Ms.Ambreen Saheed for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 4TH DECEMBER 2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 6TH JANUARY 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This application is taken out by the appellant for an injunction restraining the respondent from entering upon the premises of the appellant and/or making any threatening telephone calls and/or sending emails to the managing director and other employees of the appellant. - 2 - 2. The respondent was an employee of the appellant. By a letter dated 12th March 2003, her services were terminated. Simultaneously, a complaint was filed with the Senior Inspector of Police, Andheri (East) Police Station in which it was alleged that the respondent was likely to create nuisance leading to an untoward incident and breach of peace at any time. Subsequently, the appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for an injunction restraining the respondent from entering into the premises of the appellant company or sending any threatening emails or other communications to the managing director or other officers of the company. By an order dated 11th August 2005, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant filed the present appeal in this Court. In the appeal, this civil application has been taken out by the appellant for interim injunction restraining the respondent from entering into the premises of the company and/or sending any threatening emails and other threatening communications to the managing director and other employees of the company. 3. The respondent has filed a criminal case involving top officials of the appellant company. While dismissing the suit, the City Civil Court has held that the suit was filed with a view to create defence in the - 3 - criminal trial. 4. Before the City Civil Court, no evidence was adduced nor any attempt made by the appellant to show that the respondent entered into the premises of the company after termination of her service. In fact, after termination she entered the office only once and that too with the help of the police for collecting her belongings from the office. 5. Before me, I see no material on record to show that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent made any attempt to enter the premises of the appellant company and/or send any threatening emails to the appellant. The civil application was taken out on 13th February 2006 and no attempt was made to seek even an ad-interim relief till January 2007. By an order dated 8th January 2007, this Court (Coram: A.S. Oka, J.) rejected the prayer for ad-interim relief. No appeal was filed against that order. Till today, no material was placed before this Court to show that after the refusal of the ad-interim relief, the respondent had made any attempt of unlawfully entering into the premises of the appellant company or had sent any threatening emails or communications to the appellant or its officers. - 4 - 6. In view of the facts narrated above and in view of the fact that there is no material on record to show that the respondent has made any attempt of any illegal entry into the premises of the appellant company or has sent any threatening emails or communications to the appellant or its officers and in view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court that the suit appears to have been filed with a view to create defence in the criminal proceedings filed against officers of the appellant company, I am not satisfied that there exists any ground to grant the relief of injunction to the appellant. Hence, the civil application for injunction is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)