MR RAKESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Plaintiff : Mr Gagan Mathur, Advocate. For the Defendants : Mr Roshan Santhalia, Advocate for Defendant nos.1 to 7. Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC for UOI. CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.5576/2016 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present application, inter alia, praying as under: "a) Pass an exparte ad interim injunction order thereby restraining the defendant, his agent, servants, or any other person on behalf of defendants from using and utilizing the Confidential Information of the plaintiff company and from carrying out any activity including competitive activity in breach of the Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement and Employee Confidentiality Agreement and from approaching the clients, customers and employees of the plaintiff company and further restrain them from badmouthing and indulging in vilification campaign against the plaintiff company and thereby cause harm to the reputation and goodwill of the CS(COMM) 482/2016 Page 1 of 20 plaintiff company; b) Pass an exparte ad interim injunction order thereby directing the defendant no. 4 to render accounts before this Hon'ble Court;" 2. The Plaintiff is a private company and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of Data Recovery. The Plaintiff states that it has been providing a wide range of Data Recovery, Data Migration and Data Erasure Solutions to its clients in India and abroad. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the erstwhile employees of the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are the respective spouses of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Defendant no. 4 (hereafter 'Techchef') is a company promoted by Defendant nos. 5 to 7 and they are also the directors of the said company. 4. The Plaintiff alleges that although Defendant nos. 5 to 7 are shown as the promoters/directors of Techchef, in fact, its business is carried on by Defendant nos. 1 to 3, who are in de facto control and management of Techchef. It is further alleged that Techchef is also carrying on the same activities/business as is being carried on by the Plaintiff that is, the business of providing services relating to data recovery, data migration and data erasure and is directly competing with the Plaintiff. 5. It is the Plaintiff's case that Defendant nos. 1 to 3 by virtue of their CS(COMM) 482/2016 Page 2 of 20 employment with the Plaintiff had access to Plaintiff's confidential data, information, trade secrets and knowhow and they are now using the same for securing the business from the Plaintiff's clients. According to the Plaintiff, the same is breach of the "Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement" and "Employee Confidentiality Agreement" entered into by Defendant nos. 1 to 3 with the Plaintiff. 6. The Plaintiff claims that it became aware of an email forwarded by Defendant no.1 to Defendant no. 3 regarding a work order sent by M/s Rollatainers Limited, which the Plaintiff claims is an ancillary of M/s Amtek Group, which in turn is stated to be a customer of the Plaintiff. It is further claimed that the Defendants are continuing to approach the Plaintiff's customers and soliciting work from them. It is contended that the aforesaid action of the Defendants approaching the Plaintiff's customers is in violation of the aforesaid Agreements entered into by the Defendants with the Plaintiff. 7. Mr Mathur, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants have stolen the Plaintiff's client list, which includes the phone numbers and contact details of the concerned persons, and are using the same for their business. He further stated that the Defendants had also not returned the laptop provided to them during their employment. It was CS(COMM) 482/2016 Page 3 of 20 earnestly contended that the client list prepared by the Plaintiff is its proprietary information and, therefore, the Defendants must be restrained from using the said list and/or approaching the Plaintiff's customer