Bombay High Court
Manorama Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Gagan Harsh Sharma And 14 Ors. on 18 December, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:25513 1/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 246 OF 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 87 OF 2019
Manorama Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicant
V/S
Gagan Harsh Sharma And Ors. ....Respondent
WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 554 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT 87 OF 2019 Manorama Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicant V/S Gagan Harsh Sharma And Ors. ....Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6938 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 87 OF 2019 Manorama Info Solutions Pvt Ltd ....Applicant V/S Alight Solution ....Respondents WITH COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 87 OF 2019 Manorama Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/S Gagan Harsh Sharma And Ors. ....Defendants ________ Ms. Ankita Singhania a/w Mr. Sahil Memon, Ms. Jahnvi Pandey and Mr. Ishan Jha i/b Link Legal, for the Plaintiff.
Areeb
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 :::
2/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC
Mr. Shyam Kapadia a/w Mr. Kanishk Varma i/b Desai & Dewanji, for Defendant No.14.
Mr. Rashmin Khandekar a/w Mr. Shayan Dasgupta and Ms. Benaisha Hansotia i/b Khaitan & Co., for Defendant No.15.
Mr. Suhail Sehgal, (through V.C.) i/by D. S. Patil in IA(L) 35318 of 2024 for Respondent (Alight) Mr. Deepak S. Bhalerao, Second Assistant to Court Receiver, present.
________
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR J
DATE : 18th December, 2025
P.C.
1. The Applicant, who is Defendant No. 14 in the captioned Commercial IP Suit has filed the present Chamber Summons seeking (a) that the Plaint be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("CPC") qua the Applicant and alternatively (b) to strike off the name of the Applicant as a party to the Suit under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
2. Mr. Kapadia, Learned Counsel for the Applicant at the outset, pointed out that the Plaintiff had filed the captioned Suit, inter alia, alleging (i) breach of confidentiality and (ii) infringement of copyright, arising from the alleged illegal and unauthorized access to, transfer or divulgence of, and theft of the Plaintiff's source codes and software. He submitted that the said source codes and software were created, developed, and owned by the Plaintiff Company and constituted the Plaintiff's confidential information and were works in which the Plaintiff held the copyright.
3. Mr. Kapadia submitted that the Applicant is an insurance broking company based in Kenya, which administers private and government Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 ::: 3/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC insurance schemes, and was using the Plaintiff's software solely for the purpose of processing and approving insurance claims pursuant to the Master Service Agreement dated 1st October 2016, executed between the Applicant and Defendant No. 5. He further submitted that the Applicant was merely entrusted with the limited task of processing medical insurance claims by using the Plaintiff's software, approving such claims, and effecting payments. The Applicant's use of the source codes was, therefore, with the knowledge and permission of the Plaintiff, and consequently, no question of any breach of confidentiality or infringement of copyright in the source codes could arise.
4. Mr. Kapadia then took me through the Plaint to demonstrate that it was the Plaintiff's own specific case that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had lured Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, namely the Plaintiff's former employees, into parting with the source codes and had thereby wrongfully procured the same. He submitted that the entire Plaint proceeds on the premise that it was Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, acting in collusion with Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, who had unlawfully obtained, accessed, and divulged the Plaintiff's software and source codes, and not the Applicant. Mr. Kapadia thus submitted that a meaningful reading of the Plaint made it clear that the allegations of breach of confidentiality and infringement of copyright were directed against Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8, and not the Applicant. Mr. Kapadia thus submitted that since the entire thrust of breach of confidentiality and infringement of copyright was against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 8, the Suit against the Applicant was wholly vexatious and Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 ::: 4/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC did not disclose any clear right of the Plaintiff to join the Applicant as a Defendant to the Suit, and thus, the Chamber Summons be allowed.
5. Mr. Kapadia then placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.1 and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali2 to submit that, the Court was required to upon a meaningful and not merely formal reading of the Plaint, ascertain whether the same was manifestly vexatious, illusory, or does not disclose a clear right to sue, then the Plaint was liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. He submitted that the practice of clever drafting to create false illusion of cause of action must be curtailed and that if the Court finds that the Plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is incumbent upon the Court to reject the Plaint at the threshold.
6. Per Contra, Ms. Singhnia, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, submitted that the present Chamber Summons was wholly misconceived since the Plaint contained specific allegations against the Applicant of illegally and/or unauthorizedly sharing the usernames and passwords of the Plaintiff's software, thereby wrongfully divulging the Plaintiffs confidential information. She then invited my attention to the Plaint to point out that the Plaintiff had, set out in various paragraphs inter alia, that the access to Plaintiff's software was given to the selected employees of the Applicant and the same was limited for use in Kenya 1 (1997) 4 SCC 467 2 (2020) 7 SCC 366 Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 ::: 5/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC despite which the Applicant had unauthorizedly shared the access to Plaintiff's software with the employees of Defendant No. 15 in India. She thus submitted that it was wholly incorrect for the Applicant to contend that a meaningful reading of the Plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the Applicant.
7. Ms. Singhania then submitted that it is well settled that, while considering an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court is not required to examine whether the Plaintiff will ultimately succeed in establishing a cause of action against a particular Defendant, but only whether the Plaint, as framed, discloses a cause of action. She pointed out that, in the present case, since the Plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action against the Applicant the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali were wholly inapplicable, and the Applicant's reliance upon the same was wholly misconceived.
8. Ms. Singhania then placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Clarinda D'souza v. McCann Erickson India Ltd. 3 to submit that it was now well settled that, while considering an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court has to proceed on the basis of a demurrer and accept the averments contained in the Plaint as being true and correct. She submitted that the scope of the Court's enquiry was limited to ascertaining whether the Plaint, as framed, disclosed a cause of action, and that the Court was not required to enter into an examination 3 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1110 Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 ::: 6/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC of the merits of the defence of the party seeking deletion. In the facts of the present case, Ms. Singhania reiterated that the Plaint contained specific and detailed allegations against the Applicant of granting illegal and unauthorized access to Defendant No. 15 of the Plaintiff's software and, therefore, the Plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action against the Applicant. She therefore submitted that the question of deletion of the Applicant's name as a party Defendant in the facts of the present case did not arise.
9. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and upon considering the Plaint as a whole, I find that the Plaint clearly discloses a cause of action against the Applicant. As held by this Court in Clarinda D'souza v. McCann Erickson India Ltd., while considering an application under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court is required to examine the Plaint in its entirety and proceed on the assumption that the averments made therein are true and correct. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the correctness of the allegations or the likelihood of the Plaintiff ultimately succeeding in the Suit.
10.In the present case, the Plaint specifically alleges that the Applicant, acting in concert with the other Defendants, has illegally and unauthorizedly shared the Plaintiff's software. The Plaint when read as a whole, alleges that these actions on the part of the Applicant has resulted in a breach of confidentiality and infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright. These averments, taken at face value, constitute the necessary material facts giving rise to a cause of action against the Applicant. It Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 ::: 7/7 CHS-246-2019.DOC therefore cannot be said that the Plaint is bereft of a cause of action or is illusory in nature. Whether the case as pleaded will ultimately entitle the Plaintiff to the reliefs claimed is a matter that can only be determined after evidence is led and tested at trial. At this stage, on a meaningful reading of the Plaint as a whole, I am unable to hold that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Applicant. Consequently, the reliance placed by the Applicant on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali is misplaced and of no assistance to the Applicant.
11.The Plaintiff's case, as set out in the Plaint, will therefore have to be tested at trial. Needless to add, this being a Commercial Suit, in the event the Plaintiff ultimately fails, the Applicant would be entitled to seek an appropriate order as to costs in accordance with Section 35 of the CPC, as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. At the stage of determining costs, the Court is statutorily required to have regard, inter alia, to the conduct of the parties and whether the claim was vexatious or frivolous. In the event the Applicant succeeds in establishing that the present Suit was vexatious and that the Plaintiff fails to make out any cause of action against the Applicant the Court will undoubtedly grant the Applicant costs.
12.Hence, the Chamber Summons is dismissed.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR. J] Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:03:02 :::