1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.310 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 90 OF 2009 Emmay HR Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff Vs. Protick Basu ..Defendant. ---- Mr. Gautam Tiwari a/w R. Mohandas i/b ALMT Legal, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, for the Defendant. --- CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 20th NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for damages against the defendant who is stated to be the ex-employee of the plaintiff-company. 2. The plaintiff, inter alia, prayed for an Interim injunction against the defendant restraining him from using, disseminating, or in any way disclosing any confidential information of the plaintiff company or technical information, the business policies and/or practices, business plans, business strategies, and other material developed by the plaintiff company. 3. The Interim injunction in terms of this relief is sought and that is how the present Notice of Motion is moved on 3.3.2009. This court on 3.3.2009, passed an ad-interim order. 4. This Notice of Motion is now placed for final hearing. It is urged that 2 this ad-interim order should continue at least for a period of one year so that the terms and conditions of the resignation letter are complied with. This request is strongly opposed by the defendant who has alleged that there is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff does not disclose what is the confidential information of the plaintiff company the technical information, the business policies and/or practices, etc. and when it is allegedly disclosed and how this agreement have been violated and when. The Plaintiff’s allegations made in the notice of motion are baseless. These allegations are vague and there are no specific allegations that an agreement is executed and there is breach thereof or any clause of the same or of the business policies and/or practices, business plans, business strategies, and other material developed by the plaintiff company. 5. My attention is invited to paragraphs 18 and 19 of the plaint, and it is urged that on this basis an ad-interim order is granted. Further, the defendant was employed as Associate Director by an appointment letter/Contract of employment dated 24.4.2006, wherein the nature of duties are set out. The defendant indicated his intention to resign from the services of the plaintiff- company by letter dated 27.5.2008, requesting therein to accept his formal resignation. Thereafter, the plaintiff relieved the defendant from his duties subject to the terms and conditions set out at pages 2 and 3 of the plaint. 6. Thus, the foundation of the claim is that the plaintiff appointed the defendant, that he resigned from his services, that the resignation was accepted but on some terms. It is the breach of these terms and conditions of the resignation letter that is made foundation of the monetary claim. One of the contention is that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to resign from their 3 service and during his service there was no agreement specifically restraining him from disclosing anything which is stated to have been given as confidential information. I fail to understand as to how the plaintiff in these circumstances is seeking interim injunction on the basis of averments in the plaint. It is their own case that the defendant has joined another company. Merely because they found some data on computer which is stated to have been misused by the defendant when he was in service of the company, I do not see how any relief can be claimed and on the basis there is breach of terms and conditions on which resignation has been accepted. Further, the defendant has clarified in his affidavit-in-reply that the entire information made available to him contained in files, computer, laptop, mobile etc. has been handed over to the HR department and it was accounted for through an internal check list which is confirmed by the HR department and the immediate reporting senior. The plaintiff did not allege any wrongdoing. It is only after the plaintiff come to know that defendant joined M/s Manpower Services India Pvt. Ltd that they issued notice to the defendant alleging breach of the contract on the ground of defendant’s joining another company. In the paragraphs 8 to 10 of the affidavit- in-reply, the defendant has denied the plaint averments and more particularly paragraphs 18 and 19 thereof. 7. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. The law in this regard is well settled, to require reiteration here. That apart from reading of the plaint it appears that the case set out is vague and devoid of any particulars. It is not the breach of the confidentiality agreement allegedly executed by the defendant while in service which is alleged but it is a breach of alleged terms and conditions of the resignation letter. I do not see how when 4 the cause of action is such that plaintiff can seek any interim reliefs. 8. In the result, the Notice of Motion is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 9. Ad-interim order is vacated forthwith. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)