Allowed

Jasbir Singh Randhwa v. Hindustan Comosites Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2009APP/423/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three appeals challenging contempt punishments under the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court set aside a fine imposed for alleged breach of trade secret injunction, holding that since the information was already in the public domain, no willful or intentional breach occurred.

What did the court decide?

The order of the learned Single Judge imposing fine and imprisonment for breach of injunction was set aside, and the contempt petition was dismissed.

Jasbir Singh Randhwa Vs Hindustan Comosites Ltd. — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO.423 OF 2002 IN

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.103 OF 2001 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.50 OF 1997

¶5

¶6

SUIT NO.4594 OF 1996

¶7

Jasbir Singh Randhawa V/s.

¶8

Hindustan Composites Ltd and Ors.

¶9

.... Appellant

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

WITH APPEAL NO.424 OF 2002 IN

¶12

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.103 OF 2001 IN

¶13

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.50 OF 1997 IN

¶14

SUIT NO.4594 OF 1996

¶15

Capt. Jagbir Singh Randhawa .... Appellant V/s.

¶16

Hindustan Composites Ltd and Ors. ..... Respondents

¶17

WITH APPEAL NO.425 OF 2002 IN

¶18

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.103 OF 2001 IN

¶19

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.50 OF 1997 IN

¶20

SUIT NO.4594 OF 1996

¶21

Ranbro Brakes India Ltd. V/s.

¶22

.... Appellant

¶23

Hindustan Composites Ltd and Ors. ..... Respondents

¶24

¶25

Mr.Anand Grover i/by Mr.Prakash Mahadik, for the appellants. Mr.Simil Purohit i/by Doijode Phatarphekar, for respondent No.1.

¶26

CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ.

¶27

DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2009

¶28

P.C.

¶29

Since common point is involved in all these appeals, they are taken up for final disposal and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶30

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid appeals. By the impugned order dated 02-04-2002, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 Mr.Jasbir Singh Randhawa (appellant in Appeal No.423 of 2002) and respondent No.3 Capt.Jagbir Singh Randhawa (appellant in Appeal No.424 of 2002) have disobeyed the order of this Court and committed breach of injunction, as they have divulged the trade secret in spite of the injunction of this Court and accordingly, imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of them. Mr.Jasbir Singh Randhawa, appellant of Appeal No.423 of 2002 was in the employment of respondent Company and Capt.Jagbir Singh Randhawa, is a Director of M/s.Ranbro Brakes India Ltd.

¶31

The respondent herein instituted a suit against the said

¶32

¶33

company and against the aforesaid director and employee of the company,

¶34

with a prayer that they may not divulge information to any one. Injunction was accordingly granted, which was alleged to have been breached by the appellants. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that since the appellants herein committed breach of injunction, they were required to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act and accordingly, awarded fine of Rs.2,000/- to each of them and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one week. The aforesaid order is challenged by the respective appellants in these appeals.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have not divulged any secret information at all, as the information which they have allegedly passed on or parted with, was already divulged as back as 17 years back and it was under public domain. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to flout the injunction order. Since the information in respect of manufacturing process was in public domain, it could not be treated as trade secret at all.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as the aspect of breach of injunction is concerned, it is between the Court and the contemnor and he has nothing to say in the matter. He submitted that it is true that specific finding is not given in this behalf by

¶37

¶38

the learned Single Judge while disposing of the contempt petition.

¶39

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents at some length. It is required to be noted that it is the consistent stand of the appellants that the so called secret information/process was already available at the public domain since long and it is not for the first time, they tried to divulge secret information to the public. Since it was already in public domain, there cannot be any question of breach of injunction which can be alleged against the appellants. It is pointed out that the parties have already settled their dispute and the suit itself has been withdrawn by the parties and the interim order was vacated. So far as the withdrawal of the suit is concerned, it has nothing to do with the question of breach of injunction, as the alleged act of breach of the injunction can still continue even though original proceedings are withdrawn. At this stage, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is required to be considered to the effect that the so called secret information was already available in the public domain since long and as the other side is not in a position to dispute the same, in our view, even though, the Court had granted injunction and if secret information was already known to the public even

¶40

prior to that, it cannot be said that for the first time, the appellants/original defendants has divulged such information to outside

¶41

¶42

public. Considering the said aspect and the fact that the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect, in our view, it cannot be said that the appellants have committed breach of injunction willfully or intentionally,

¶43

as according to them, such injunction was not capable of being obeyed. Considering the said aspect and the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge, the appellants have tendered unconditional apology before the learned Single Judge, in our view, this is not a case in which the appellants are required to be punished and it cannot be said that the appellants have willfully committed any breach of injunction of this Court. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the contempt petition No.103 of 2001. It is clarified that if any other proceedings in this behalf before any other forum is pending, this order will have no effect in any manner.

¶44

In view of what has been stated above, the aforesaid

¶45

appeals are disposed of.

¶46

( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)

Jasbir Singh Randhwa v. Hindustan Comosites Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh Randhwa v. Hindustan Comosites Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vvf Ltd. Vs K. D. Patil Raigad and 5 Others

Mumbai Labour Union Vs Parsi Dairy Farm and Anr.

Arport Authority of India Vs Ramniranjan Kedia Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd.

Jasbir Singh Randhawa Vs Hindustan Composites Ltd. and Anr.

Ramajanali Jivabhai Baradia and Ors. Vs Virendra Kalishaan Gupta and Ors.

Un Ited Liner Agencies of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Ors.