Allowed

M/S Nurture Agtech Private Limited v. Mr N Mohan Reddy

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023MFA/849/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A First Appeal was filed against an order dismissing an application for temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the Ess Report. Found the Trial Court did not act upon the said report as neither parties have been reported nor brought into existence of the impugned order. Held that the report was essential for disposal of application. Set aside impugned order and allowed IA No.1.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the temporary injunction application was set aside; IA No.1 is allowed restraining defendants from accessing or using confidential data as per the Deloitte report.

M/S Nurture Agtech Private Limited Vs Mr N Mohan Reddy — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S NURTURE AGTECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIPHOS HOUSE, C D MARG 11^TH ROAD, KHAR(WEST) MUMBAI-400052 HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT SAKTI STATESMAN 10^TH FLOOR, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR VIKAS CHANDRA GUPTA

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. THAMMAIAH H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR N MOHAN REDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY NIMMALA AGED MAJOR R/O 4-2-522 POLICE HOUSING COLONY NEAR MAMTA MEDICAL COLLEGE KHANAPURAM HAWELI KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002

¶14

¶15

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶16

M/S AGRICAPITA INNOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H.NO.6-55/6, WARANGAL X ROAD MARUTHI NAGAR, RD NO.4, KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

MR ATUL KUMAR SINGH S/O HARI KISHAN SING KAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.005, D BLOCK SAGAR PREMIUM TOWER (NEAR JK HOSPITAL) SHIRDI PURAM KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH INDIA-462042

¶18

MR SAHIL WALI S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR H.NO.6-55/6 WARRANGAL X ROAD MARUTHI NAGAR RD NO.4, KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002

¶19

SMT HARSHINI MUPPANI W/O MR N MOHAN REDDY AGED MAJOR H.NO.6-55/6 WARANGAL X ROAD MARUTHI NAGAR RD NO.4, KHAMMAM TELANGANA-507002

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.29.11.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.26612/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-22), REJECING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.26612/2022

¶28

on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the said application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondents - defendants was dismissed by the trial court.

¶29

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.K.Sampath Kumar for the appellant and leaned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶30

The material on record discloses that the appellant -plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs as hereunder:-

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶33

(1) Pass an order of PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, its employees, agents, contractors, consultants, partners or any other persons/entity claiming through or under them from, directly or indirectly, accessing, copying, sharing or using in any manner, the confidential data/proprietary information/material, information pertaining to client and client relationships, or any trade secrets that belongs to the plaintiff company.

¶34

(2) Pass an order of MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the Defendants to deliver up to the Plaintiffs, any and all copies of the confidential data/proprietary information/material or any trade secrets, in any form, that is directly or indirectly stored or in their possession;

¶35

(3) Direct an enquiry into the losses caused by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants and further direct them to pay to the Plaintiff, monetary damages for the quantum of damage caused by the Defendants to the Plaintiff;

¶36

(4) Direct the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the cost of the suit;

¶37

(5) Grant such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem it and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶38

The said suit is being contested by the

¶39

respondents -defendants. Along with the suit, the appellant - plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction under

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶42

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. In the first instance, the Trial Court passed an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction dated 18.10.2022 restraining the respondents - defendants, its employees, agents its employees, agents, contractors, consultants, partners or any other persons/entity claiming through or under them from, directly or indirectly, accessing, copying, sharing or using in any manner, the confidential data/proprietary information/material, information pertaining to client and client relationships, or any trade secrets that belongs to the plaintiff company.

¶43

The respondents - defendants having entered appearance, they not only filed the written statement but also filed objections to the application I.A.No.1 and after hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing I.A.No.1 and thereby vacating the ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction, aggrieved by which, appellant-plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶46

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶47

appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

¶48

A perusal of the material on record would indicate

¶49

that during the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the respondents - defendants specifically contended that there was no material produced by the appellant - defendant as regards the nature of information in respect of which the appellant - plaintiff sought an order of temporary injunction against the respondents - defendants. Under these circumstances, the appellant - plaintiff filed an affidavit on 19.11.2022 enclosing the copy of the Forensic report prepared by Deloitte purporting to contain the information as regards the specific details of the information in respect of which temporary injunction was sought for by the appellant - plaintiff. In this context, it is relevant to state that though the trial court has referred to the aforesaid Deloitte report at paragraph No.25 of the impugned order, the Trial Court did not act upon the said report nor take the same into consideration for the purpose of disposal of I.A.No.1 on the

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶52

ground that both sides did not make any submissions in this regard as can be seen from paragraph No.27 of the impugned order.

¶53

8. Paragraphs No.25 to 27 of the impugned order

¶54

read as under:

¶55

25. At this stage, it is to be noted that, when the matter was being heard, on 19/11/2022, counsel for plaintiff filed additional affidavit along with a forensic report prepared by Deloitte. However, the said additional affidavit was rejected and refused to be taken on record in view of the fact that, no application was filed seeking leave to file additional affidavit, at the time of hearing. Anyhow, it was made clear that, the document produced along with the memo would be considered. Learned for plaintiff placed heavy reliance upon the said forensic report to point out that, the said report reflects that, analysis of the official laptop and official e-mail ID of defendant No. 1 has disclosed that, he has stored many confidential files of the plaintiff company on his external pen drive/storage and shared them with his personal Gmail account. As against this, Learned counsel for defendants argued with reference to various emails produced along with the memo dated 24/11/2022 that, the officials of plaintiff company

¶56

¶57

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶58

were themselves marking several official emails to the personal Gmail account of the defendant No. 1 and therefore, there is nothing wrong in defendant No. 1 sharing files with his personal email ID and considering the nature of the defendant No. 1's work being the field work, he was perfectly justified in taking backup of several files in his pen drive and unless it is shown that Defendant No. 1 has made any unauthorised usage of the plaintiff's files after ceasing to be the employee of plaintiff, the said report, even if taken at face value will not show any wrongdoing on the part of defendant No. 1.

¶59

26. In my view, having considered the rival contentions, the said report will not help the plaintiff's case at this stage firstly, because it is not proper to look into the report when there is no reference to the said report or the contents of the report in the pleadings or in the affidavit in support of IA No. 1. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the Learned counsel for defendants, in the additional affidavit filed (which has been rejected), it is stated that, prior to filing of the suit plaintiff had approached Deloitte for conducting fact-finding review whereas the covering letter to the report itself states that the said forensic expert was engaged only on 27/10/2022 which is subsequent to the filing of the suit and subsequent to the passing of ad interim order. Therefore, when a

¶60

¶61

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶62

false statement is made in the affidavit producing the said report, it is not proper to look into the said report, at this stage. Even otherwise, even accepting the report at face value it only shows that, the defendant No. 1 during his course of employment with plaintiff company, has taken certain files on his pen drive and shared certain files with his personal Gmail ID. The Learned counsel for plaintiff has been unable to show that, there was any company policy prohibiting or restricting usage of external storage/pen drive. Insofar as sharing files with personal Gmail account of defendant No. 1 is concerned, as already noted supra, the plaintiff company officials themselves were marking copies of official emails to the personal Gmail ID of defendant No. 1 and therefore, there is nothing wrong if defendant No. 1 had also shared official information with his personal Gmail ID. It is only if plaintiff can show that after ceasing to be in the employment of plaintiff company, the defendant No. 1 made wrongful usage or wrongfully divulged the said files or information that the cause of action for seeking temporary injunction would arise.

¶63

27. Further, at the time of arguments, Learned counsel for plaintiff filed memo dated 24/11/2022 listing the confidential documents referred to in the report of Deloitte. This was, in fact, in response to

¶64

10 -

¶65

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶66

the clarification sought for by the court on the previous date, when Learned Senior Counsel had appeared for Plaintiff when the Court sought to know, which are the confidential files referred in the Deloitte so that, if the list of confidential files could be given, the same could be shared with the defendants to see whether defendants could undertake not to utilise the said files. However, thereafter the Learned Counsel for both sides preferred to argue the matter on merits and therefore, the said memo will not help the Plaintiff's case and this aspect is being narrated in this order only to give the background in which, Learned counsel for plaintiff filed the said memo. Anyhow, the said memo on the confidential files will have no bearing on the Plaintiff's claim for temporary injunction because I have already noted supra that, even accepting the Deloitte report at face value it will not help the plaintiff to prove any wrongful act on the part of defendant No. 1 in misusing or improperly divulging or sharing any confidential information and data of the plaintiff company.

¶67

It is also significant to note that the aforesaid

¶68

Deloitte report produced by the plaintiff has also been produced by the appellant before this Court.

¶69

11 -

¶70

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶71

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶72

and the details and specific information in respect of which the appellant - plaintiff sought for an order of temporary injunction is purported to be contained in the aforesaid Deloitte report, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed an error in not placing reliance upon the aforesaid Deloitte report and thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellant - plaintiff and on this short ground alone, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside.

¶73

11. Learned counsel for the respondent - defendant

¶74

submits that the respondent - defendant had undertaken specifically before the Trial Court and would reiterate in the present appeal also that the data/material as stated in the Deloitte report has already been deleted and the question the respondent sharing or misusing the same does not arise. The said submission is placed on record.

¶75

In the result, the following

¶76

12 -

¶77

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶80

(ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 in O.S. No.26162/2022 on I.A. No.1 passed by the Hon’ble XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶81

(iii) I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant - plaintiff is allowed by restraining the defendants, its employees, agents its employees, agents, contractors, consultants, partners or any other persons/entity claiming through or under them from, directly or indirectly, accessing, copying, sharing or using in any manner, the confidential data/proprietary information/material, information pertaining to client and client relationships, or any trade secrets that allegedly belongs to the plaintiff company as per the data/material referred to in the Deloitte report, pending disposal of the suit.

¶82

(iv) The undertaking given on behalf of the respondents - defendants that they would not

¶83

13 -

¶84

MFA No. 849 of 2023

¶85

misuse or share any of the data/material as per

¶86

the Deloitte report in favour of anyone is placed

¶87

on record.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

KLY

M/S Nurture Agtech Private Limited v. Mr N Mohan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nurture Agtech Private Limited v. Mr N Mohan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M S Nagendra Kumar Vs Smt G P Saralavathi

Dr Ravi Prakash Vs Smt J C Dhanamani

Sri B M Ravi Rabbanna Vs Smt Puttamma

Sathish Kuamr T R Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma

Smt Roopa K Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri K v Nagabhushan Vs Sri H B Santhosh Kumar Jain