KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.60 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3182 OF 2007 M/s.Pushpaman Forgings ..Plaintiffs Vs. Rajreddy Tukareddy Tokale ..Defendant ---- None for the plaintiffs. Mr.Sahil Mahajan i/by Parag Shelke for the defendant. ---- CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J DATE : 3/8/2010 P. C.: 1 None for the plaintiffs. I have heard Advocate for the defendant. This Notice of Motion was earlier kept back at the request of the Advocate for the plaintiffs. However, when the matter was called out, Advocate for the plaintiffs is absent. It is seen that the suit has been filed for enforcement of a negative covenant contained in clause-8 of the contract of employment. The negative covenant was that the employee agrees not to engage KJ 2 himself or serve any organization which deals with the manufacture, sale, trade etc. in a similar business for a period of five years from the date of relinquishment of service. Notice of Motion was moved for ad-interim relief and on 18.2.2008 by a reasoned order, this Court came to the conclusion that such a negative covenant was prima facie in restraint of trade in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd., Vs. Shri Krishnan Murgai. The Court also did not grant injunction regarding disclosure of information which was allegedly confidential on the ground that on the basis of material produced before the Court, it could not be said that the defendant was in possession of confidential information. This Court further observed that there was an un-explained delay in approaching the Court. The ad-interim relief was therefore, refused on a prima facie findings that the negative covenant contained in clause-8 of the contract of employment was in restraint of trade. When the order dated 18.2.2008 was passed, the reply dated 6.2.2008 was before the Court. Subsequently, a rejoinder dated 2.6.2008 has been filed by the Advocate for the plaintiffs. The position of law as KJ 3 set out in the ad-interim order does not change in view of what is stated in the affidavit in rejoinder. In this view of the matter, Notice of Motion stands dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J.)