Bombay High Court
The Bhor Chemicals And Plastics Private ... vs Amol K Patil And Anr on 25 January, 2021
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 4637 OF 2020
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 4636 OF 2020
WITH
LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 4638 OF 2020
The Bhor Chemicals and Plastics Pvt Ltd ...Plaintif
Versus
Amol K Patil & Anr ...Defendants
Mr Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr Ashish Kamat,
Mr Kunal Mehta, Mr Punit Damodar and Ms Nikita Vardhan,
i/b Kanga & Company, for the Plaintiff
Mr Ronak Desai, for Defendant Nof1f
Mr Faizan Mithaiwala, i/b P & A Law Offes, for Defendant Nof2f
Mr DN Kher, Court Refeiver presentf
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 25th January 2021
PC:-
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed
by ARUN
1.The matter is listed today for ad-interim reliefs. To note the RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2021.01.25 17:03:18 +0530 state of the record, Afdavits have been fled not only up to the stage of the Rejoinder but there are further Afdavits by the Plaintif, by Page 1 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC one Sanjay Mahamuni (of whom, a little more presently) and a compilation fled by the Plaintif.
2. The Suit itself is an action that seeks to protect the Plaintiffs confdential information and trade secrets, particularly in regard to a what is claimed to be a proprietary industrial technology and process. This confdential information also extends to bespoke or custom-designed and built modifcations to items of machinery and equipment.
3. To put it very briefy, the Plaintifsf case is that the 1st Defendant ("Patil") is an erstwhile employee of the Plaintif. While still in employment, he quite literally stole samples, and passed on proprietary and confdential information to the 2nd Defendant This information, and possibly these samples, were channelled through Mahamuni, who was then ― or, at any rate, at the relevant time in 2019 -- an employee of the 2nd Defendant ("Parshawa Composites"), a sole proprietorship of one Vajra Kumar Abhinandan.
4. The matter was frst moved for ad-interim relief shortly after the Suit was fled in October 2020. When it came up before KR Shriram J, this was the order passed.
"1. At the outset, Mr.Dwarkadas tenders draft amendments to the Plaint as well as the Interim Application. Both taken on record and marked 'Xf and 'X- 1f respectively, for identifcation. Leave to amend as per the draft granted. Amendment to be carried out within one Page 2 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC week from today. Plaint and Interim Application as amended to be served alongwith this order upon defendants.
2. Heard Mr.Dwarkadas for plaintif. This is an application made ex-parte for reasons mentioned in paragraph no.7, page-77 of the plaint.
3. It is plaintiffs case that defendant no.1 was associated with the Managing Director of plaintif since 2010 and formally employed with plaintif since 1.4.2018. By virtue of his close association with the Managing Director, defendant no.1 was in the know of various confdential information regarding plaintiffs operation and trade secrets. Accordingly Non-Disclosure and Confdentiality Agreement was also entered into between plaintif and defendant no.1 on 1.4.2018 and on 15.1.2020.
4. In July-September-2020 one Sanjay Mahamuni who was employed with defendant no.2 contacted plaintif through one Dr.Milind Khandwe the technical director and senior personnel in plaintiffs employment and expressed interest in joining plaintiffs employment. During the conversation it seems Mr.Mahamuni informed Dr.Khandwe that defendant no.1 has been in touch with defendant no.2 and has been visiting defendant no.2 from time to time and has also been passing of all confdential information and trade secrets of plaintif. The conversation of Dr.Khandwe with Mr.Mahamuni has been recorded and a CD containing the same has been fled along with the plaint. Mr.Dwarkadas submits that there is lot of credibility to what Mr.Mahamuni informed Dr.Khandwe in view of email dated 17.10.2020 which defendant no.1 sent to the Managing Director of plaintif by way of an Page 3 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC apology, copy whereof if annexed to the plaint. Mr.Dwarkadas states that this email itself indicates defendant no.1 is guilty of passing of trade secrets to defendant no.2.
5. To be candid, in my view, this email does not indicate that defendant no.1 is guilty of passing of any trade secrets to defendant no.2. At the same time, defendant no.1, as averred in the plaint must certainly be aware of various secrets of plaintif and that also is confrmed by the fact that he has signed two Non- Disclosure and Confdentiality Agreements with plaintif. Mr.Dwarkadas states that from July-2020 defendant no.1 has been irregular in reporting to work and handed over charge in August-2020 and plaintif apprehends he might disclose secrets to 3rd party like he has done to defendant no.2.
6. Having heard Mr.Dwarkadas and considering the averments in the plaint, I am satisfed that if notice is given to defendant no.1, he may pass on confdential information and particulars of plaintif to third persons. Therefore, certainly an ex-parte ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause-(a) as against defendant no.1 has to be granted and the same reads as under :-
"(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direft the Defendants to disflose on oath by way of Afdavit, all dealings whifh they have had with the suit property influding the fonfdential information and partifulars of the third persons to whom the same and/or any part thereof have been disseminated influding fopies in any form whatsoever and, upon disflosure being made, to order them to deposit or handover to this Hon'ble Page 4 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC Court, all fonfdential information and proprietary informationf"
I clarify that this order is restricted to defendant no.1.
7. Mr.Dwarkadas also prays that ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause-(d) of the Interim Application be granted against defendant no.2. There is nothing on record to indicate defendant no.1 has passed on any confdential information of plaintif to Defendant no.2, and at the same time one cannot be sure that he has not. Therefore, if defendant no.2 is manufacturing, marketing or sellign any products on the basis of the use of the suit property which is defned in paragraph nos. 1.2 & 2.2. of the plaint, including confdential information and trade secrets of plaintif received from defendant no.1,, then in that case defendant no.2 is restrained by a temporary order of injunction from manufacturing, marketing or selling by himself or his agents or servants or any other person claiming through him or under him any products on the basis of the suit property including confdential information and trade secrets he has received from defendant no.1.
8. The Advocate for Plaintif will lodge the digital copy of this order with the ofce of the Court Receiver within four days of such copy being made available. Upon the same being lodged with the Court Receiver, compliance with Rule 569 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules is dispensed with.
9. This order is not to be uploaded until 26th October, 20020 and by that date the order has be served upon Page 5 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC defendants. Plaintif is at liberty to serve this order upon defendants by email, fax, courier and hand delivery.
10. This order will operate till 14th December 2020. List the above Interim Application along with the Petition under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent for further reliefs on 7th December 2020. Plaintif is granted liberty to renew it application for further reliefs on the adjourned date, after giving notice to Defendants.
11. Liberty is granted to Defendants to apply for variation of this order with 2 working days prior notice to the advocate for Plaintif.
12. Plaintif shall within one week from today fle an undertaking as required under Rule 148 of Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules through its managing director.
13. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order."
5. It was next listed before me on 17th December 2020. At that time Dr Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the 2nd Defendant and tendered a statement that his client was prepared to make. Mr Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintifs even then said this was insufcient. But Dr Saraf went on to say on instructions that the 2nd Defendant was "not manufacturing any products" with the Plaintifsf technology. And then, and this is important, I noted and accepted the statement as an undertaking to the Court.
6. As we shall see, this may very likely have very serious consequences and repercussions going forward. I allowed an Page 6 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC Afdavit in Reply to be fled by the 2nd Defendant. The matter has been listed today. There is a substantial Afdavit in Reply by the 2nd Defendant and an Afdavit in Reply of the 1st Defendant. I am presently using spare copies given to me by Advocates. The originals will be fled in the Registry, if not already done with correct paging. The Court clerk will ensure that the Interim Application fled is updated and that all order copies are all also correctly placed. In particular the Interim Application fled must include a copy of the amended Interim Application as well and the amended Plaint is also to be placed in the main fle.
7. Mr Dwarkadas for the Plaintifs has taken me to some portions of these two Afdavits and the Plaintifsf compilation. I need to consider these briefy in view of the order that I propose to pass. Taking Patilfs Afdavit frst, there are a few paragraphs in this that are of relevance. He does not, as indeed he cannot, deny that he was at the relevant time an employee of the Plaintifs. It is also not in doubt that Parshawa Composites and Abhinandan are based in Kolhapur but have a plant in Belgavi. What Patil says in his Afdavit in Reply in paragraph 8 is that Kolhapur was his home town. It was here that he was born and brought up. It was here that he had his immediate and extended family and friends. He however says in paragraph 8 that he did not visit Kolhapur on every one of his weekly of days, but only travelled perhaps once or twice a month. More than that was unafordable. The only other occasions when he had to travel was when there was either an illness or a death in the family. In any case, he says that what he does or did during his weekly of days was and is no concern of the Plaintif. Then in paragraph 11 of his Reply, Patil says or suggests that his only Page 7 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC communications were channelled through his ofcial Plaintif- provided corporate email id, one that was monitored by the Plaintif.
8. In paragraph 12 he makes a categorical statement that he has not disclosed any confdential and proprietary information belonging to the Plaintif to Parshawa Composite/Abhinandan or to any third party and that he has not dealt with the property in the Suit in any manner as alleged by the Plaintifs.
9. The 2nd Defendant has fled a much more substantial Afdavit. To understand this and its context, a very brief look at the Plaint is necessary. The Plaintif is an old and established company. It manufactures and sells composite fbre reinforcements and speciality chemicals. Carbon fbre intermediate products are amongst its signature product portfolio oferings. Patil was with the Plaintif as a production leader and factory manager from 1st April 2018 onwards. The Plaintifsf managing director Mr Abhimanyu Thackersey ("Thackersey") had a previous association with one Hindoostan Mills Limited, an enterprise of the Thackersey family and on the board on which he continues to serve. Again, this will have some bearing to what follows. The Plaintifsf products seem to fall into at least three diferent categories. First there are the composite fbre reinforcements fabric products; second, there there are called pultrusion carbon fbre products and laminate strips, and, third, there is a range called prepreg. The Plaintif has in-house R & D capabilities to constantly innovate. I do not think there can be any quarrel about the Plaintifsf investment or its certifcates and awards.
Page 8 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
10. For the purposes of what follows it is necessary to note that apart from Thackersey, there are two other persons with the Plaintifs who are not only involved in its day to day operations, but have a material role in what follows. One of these is Dr Milind Khandwe ("Khandwe") the technical director, and one Akhil Hebbar ("Hebbar"), the commercial director. What the Plaintif says is that it had made proprietary, inventive and modifcations to its composite fabric weaving machine assembly line, its yarn coating machine, its pultrusion machine assembly line and to its prepreg manufacturing assembly line. This is the "Suit property". The Plaintif claims that all these with modifcations, are the Plaintiffs proprietary and confdential information. It was also information to which Patil was privy as the production leader and factory manager in the full-time employment of the Plaintif.
11. Thackerseyfs association with the Plaintif began in 2010. He had previous experience in particular with what is known as Dornier textile machines. It seems that Hindoostan Mills Limited or HML was in a similar segment, but in 2018 it discontinued operations in that business. Patil was amongst the 80 or so employees of HML who left that company to join the present Plaintif. Patilfs appointment letter is of 1st April 2018. There is a separate non disclosure and confdentiality agreement of the same date in more or less the usual terms. The Plaintif began production at its MIDC, Ambad plant near Nashik some time in August and September 2018. The Plaintif began revamping and modernising its production line and creating proprietary modifcations for enhanced quality, efciency and throughput. Altogether about eight employees were involved in the design and roll out of the Suit property i.e. the Page 9 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC innovations, modifcations and improvements to the weaving machine assembly line, the yarn coating machines, the pultrusion process assembly line and the prepreg machine.
12. Sometime in 2019, the Plaintif claims that it noticed that Patil was frequently travelling to Kolhapur. He would also leave the Nashik plant without prior notice claiming illness or some such personal requirement and also started coming to work late. On 15th January 2020, the Plaintif and Patil entered into another non disclosure and confdentiality agreement. In April 2020, Patil said he want to leave the Plaintif and intended to set up a developmental weaving plant of his own somewhere near Kolhapur.
13. It seems that in July 2020, the Plaintif, and specifcally, Dr Khandwe were in talks with Mahamuni. He was an employee of Parshawa Composite, the 2nd Defendant, and Mahamuni was approaching the Plaintif seeking employment. It was during this conversation that Mahamuni revealed to Dr Khandwe on behalf of the Plaintif that he, Mahamuni, had been in regular touch with Patil, and that Patil had been routinely visiting the Parshawa Composites plant to help to set it up. Between July and September 2020 the Plaintif claims to have learnt (through Dr Khandwe, from Mahamuni) that Patil was in fact instrumental in setting up the Parshawa Compositesf rival plant. Further investigations followed and in September 2020, the Plaintif confrmed with its customers, some of whom are even named, that Patil was approaching them directly seeking a diversion of their orders from the Plaintif to Parshawa Composites. It seems that Patil was alerted to these Page 10 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC investigations and he addressed an email of 17th September 2020, quite unbidden, to the Plaintif. It is this email that Mr Justice KR Shriram commented on in his order of 19th October 2020. Then the Suit was fled.
14. With this background, I turn to the Afdavit of the 2nd Defendant. In paragraph 3 at pages 50-51, Parshawa Compositesf Abhinandan says that there are other companies who manufacture and use identical machines or substantially similar machines. He has thus purchased similar pultrusion machines, a second hand rapier loom, a winder machine and so on. He then goes on to say in paragraph 4 that he purchased the machines from diferent suppliers and has used them without any modifcations, and certainly without using any confdential information from the Plaintif. I am leaving aside the reference to the Not For Proft Research Institute in Ahmedabad for the present. The next relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 at pages 53 and 54 by which Abhinandan says that he entered into a Knowledge Transfer Agreement dated 29th September 2019 with a third party consultant to establish a Fibre Reinforced Polymer Pultrusion Manufacturing Process at his factory. In paragraph 11 Abhinandan says that he has no relation, business or professional with the Plaintif. He does not know how the Plaintif conduct its operations. Importantly, he says that he has not retrieved or received any of the purported confdential and proprietary information of the Plaintif from Patil or any other third party. He says that there is no business or professional relationship between Patil and him and denies that the Plaintif has adduced substantial evidence. He claims that he has used professional guidance and information that is in the public domain.
Page 11 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
15. On its own the statements are, as we shall immediately next see, not only less than helpful, but are prima facie far less than accurate. It is one thing to say that there is no business or professional relationship. It is quite another thing to deny that there is any relationship at all and the paragraph in question does not in fact say this or even suggest it. Paragraph 13 of this Reply then attacks Mahamuni. He was the President (Operations) of Parshawa Composites. He was paid a good salary. However, according to Abhinandan, Mahamunifs performance was below par and did not justify his handsome salary. He then says -- and there is no disclosed basis for this at all -- that Mahamuni provided "false information to the Plaintif". Abhinandan says he has no idea why Mahamuni did so and says that the action appears to be to drive out a legitimate competitor. In paragraph 14 he says that Mahamunifs testimony is fabricated.
16. On its own, this might not have been enough to warrant a drastic order, and certainly not of the type that I am about to make. There is indeed a long transcript of conversations of chat messages between Mr Mahamuni and Mr Patil annexed to the plaint. I will set that aside for the moment except to note that at the relevant time Patil, that is to say between June and August 2019 Patil was very much still in the employment of the Plaintif and Mahamuni was with Parshawa Composites. As Abhinandan himself says in paragraph 13 of his Reply, Mahamuni only left Parshawa Composites in February 2020. Patil did not leave the services of the Plaintif until August 2020. Consequently, during the 2019 period Mahamuni was very much an employee of Parshawa Composites and Patil was very much in full-time employment of the Plaintif.
Page 12 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC What is now revealed in the Plaintiffs compilation and Afdavit in Rejoinder really seems to put the matter beyond controversy at this prima facie stage. I will preface what follows by saying this is only a prima facie view. There is much else to be considered. The Defendants will need to be fully heard on what they have to say. I am noting this only as my reasoning on account of the fact that I intend to make today an order granting wide relief to the Plaintif.
17. In the compilation at page 3 is an email. It was sent by Mahamuni to the Plaintif on 19th December 2020. It forwards an email from Patil to Mahamuni on 12th January 2019. That forward from Patil to Mahamuni is of an 11th January 2019 email communication from a machinery vendor addressed to Patil in his capacity as an employee of the Plaintif. The vendor is Info Aayush Impex. It had ofered some machinery (a) Dornier weaving machine with some accessories) to the Plaintif. In January 2019, Patil was with the Plaintif and Mahamuni was with Parshawa Composites. Why Patil should have sent this information to Mahamuni at that time will require an explanation. But prima facie this is one piece of strong evidence that Patil was in fact communicating Plaintif- specifc information to the 2nd Defendant, Parshawa Composites, through its employee Mahamuni.
18. The next document at page 5 is again a forward of 19th December 2020 from Mahamuni to the Plaintif. What this forwards is an email from Parshawa Composites to Mahamuni of 7th July 2019 in regard to a pultrusion machine installation. If we turn the page, it shows that the pultrusion machine installation individual Page 13 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC one KM Gajjar communicated on 7th July 2019 with Patil, and Patil in turn seems to have sent this on to Mahamuni and Parshawa Composites. The next document at pages 6 and 7 show another forward from Patil of 13th July 2019 to Mahamuni with a copy to Parshawa Composites forwarding what is evidently a set of proprietary documents from pages 7 to 11. These are technical coded charts showing a code frst given by HML with a corresponding code of the Plaintif and specifying certain technical parameters between those two codes. Now obviously these codes would have relevance only to the Plaintif. HML has stopped its operations. The Plaintif had commenced its operations on the HML segment. Parshawa Composites could not have had any legitimate interest in these codes and technical sheets. Indeed it could not even have had access to them, as these could not conceivably have been said to lie in the public domain. There is much else here to be considered but I will turn now immediately to two parts of a transcript. One is annexed at page 87 of the compilation. This is where Patil is on 26th January 2020 (still with the Plaintif ) advising Mahamuni to be careful and keep the windows closed because he was struggling "for confdential things". This was in the context of a purchaser from Nepal who asked for catalogues and quotations of Parshawa Composites products. For some reason, this Patil was on the same chat and immediately responded by advising that catalogue should not be sent directly and that Mahamuni "be cautious". Obviously this kind of a transcript only happen if all the persons were part of a WhatsApp group and were able to send messages to each other and read each others messages.
Page 14 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
19. The next part of the transcript that is of some consequence is at page 192 of the Afdavit in Rejoinder. Now this really puts it beyond the pale at this ad-interim stage. It is part of an extract in paragraph 3.18 and is said to be a conversation of WhatsApp or text conversation between 9.45 am and 9.49 am on the 24th November 2019. Mahamuni and Patil are the ones present. Mahamuni opens the proceedings by asking for sample requirements of one Varmaji. Patil responds in two messages. First he says that "we have to order some fabric".
20. In November 2019, between Mahamuni and Patil, there could have been no legitimate "we". But then Patil makes this statement "canft steal more samples".
21. At which point we have Mahamunifs extraordinary answer:
"It is not stealing. It is knowledge transfer boss."
22. I note this once again in the context of Abhinandanfs categorical statement in paragraph 10 of his Afdavit in Reply that he entered into a knowledge transfer agreement on 29th September 2019.
23. To complete this the last message in this chain is from Patil at 9.49 pm, when he says "what knowledge?"
Page 15 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
24. Prima facie if this not illicit and this is not proprietary and confdential information and data theft, nothing is.
25. Paragraph 3.7 of the Rejoinder now sets out that apart from the regular WhatsApp chats between Patil and Mahamuni there was a separate WhatsApp group called "PCPL MGMT" which involved Patil, Abhinandan and Mahamuni. The discussions here were about setting up of Abhinandanfs proposed plant.
26. At the cost of repetition, I will indeed hear the Defendants more fully on these additional Afdavits and compilations. My observations today are prima facie view and I do not claim these to be a fnal determination of the rival rights and contentions. For Parshawa Composites/Abhinandan to accuse Mahamuni of ill will is one aspect. Perhaps Mahamunifs conduct needs an explanation. But however undesirable or worthy it may be, it cannot detract from the content of the transcripts. These transcripts will have to be set against the categorical denials on Afdavit by both Defendants. Seen thus, those denials are prima facie not credible. Indeed, they may even invite stronger action. I have noted these facts only because, frst, I believe they fully establish a more than sufcient prima facie case; second, they show that the balance of convenience is now decidedly in favour of the Plaintifs; and third, it is clear that if reliefs are denied, it is difcult to imagine what further and greater harm may be caused to the Plaintif. Given the nature in which this so-called "knowledge transfer" seems to have happened, the grant of relief will cause less prejudice to the Defendants than to the Plaintif.Page 16 of 21
25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
27. I am inclined to make an ad-interim now in terms of prayer clauses (c), (d), (e) and the amended prayer clause (g)(1).
"(c) this Honfble Court be pleased to pass a temporary order and injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under them from in any manner directly or indirectly, further using the carbon fabric weaving assembly line or any other machinery / manufacturing process set up on the basis of the suit property including the use of the confdential information and trade secrets, details of which are in the Schedule of Confdential Information (in a sealed envelope) and from manufacturing, marketing or selling any of the suit products listed in the Schedule at Exhibit "A" to the Plaint;
(d) This Honfble Court be pleased to pass a temporary order and injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under them from manufacturing, marketing or selling any products on the basis of the use of the suit property including the confdential information and trade secrets, details of which are given the Schedule of Confdential Information (in a sealed envelope);
(e) this Honfble Court be pleased to pass a temporary order and injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under them from in any manner, directly or indirectly, representing to the members of the public and the traders that the Defendants, their products and/or machinery / manufacturing line and process are associated with and/or have any connection with the Applicant / Plaintif so as to Page 17 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC pass of the Defendantsf trade, business and products as that of the Applicant / Plaintif;
(g)(1) This Honfble Court be pleased to appoint any ft and proper person, whether an Ofcer of this Honfble Court and/or an Advocate practising in this Honfble Court as Court Commissioner in order to visit Defendant No. 2fs factory premises at Survey No. 82/B 1924 Bedkihal, Belgaum, Karnataka pin 591 214, and enter thereupon (with police protection, if necessary) and accompanied by the Applicant/s/Plaintiffs technical personnel so as to make a detailed Report along with photographs of the machines and assembly lines in Defendant No. 2fs factory premises relating to the suit property and more particularly the carbon fabric weaving assembly line; the pultrusion assembly line, yarn coating machine; prepreg manufacturing assembly line and any other machinery / manufacturing process which is the three dimensional outcome of the illegal exploitation of the Applicantfs/Plaintiffs confdential information and trade secrets, in the Defendant No. 2fs factory premises as well as all products manufactured by the Defendant No. 2, made by using the Applicantfs/Plaintiffs confdential information and trade secrets, details of which are given in the Schedule of Confdential Information (submitted in a sealed envelope) or any part, component thereof."
28. Prayer clause (g)(1) as set out above requires the Court Receiver to visit the Parshawa Composites factory in Belgavi. The Court Receiver is present. He informs that there are two fights daily to Belgavi. The next fight is at 4.55 pm. This order will be transcribed in urgency. In any case, if it cannot be done before the Page 18 of 21 25th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC Court Receiverfs representative leaves, the Court Receiver should nonetheless not delay. The Court Receiverfs representative may use a soft copy in PDF digitally signed which will be transmitted to him by email and WhatsApp on his phone.
29. The Defendants are both represented. The 2nd Defendant is not to interfere or obstruct in the Receiver carrying out this commission.
30. The Police Authorities in Belgaum are directed to act upon being shown a digitally signed soft copy of this order and to render all possible assistance. I am aware that tomorrow is a National holiday but I will nonetheless require the 2nd Defendant to open his factory so that the Court Receiver can complete this commission.
31. I am making it clear to the Plaintif that I intend to fx special costs for this urgent order of the Receiver. The Plaintif will bear and pay these costs in the frst instance but they will be recoverable with interest jointly and severally from the Defendant at a later stage whether in the Interim Application or in the Suit.
32. Technical representatives of the Plaintif (not more than three) are permitted to accompany the Court Receiver and to be with him at the site. The 2nd Defendant may have his own technical personnel at the site as well. I will require the 2nd Defendant and one of the Plaintiffs representative to countersign the inventory.
Page 19 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
33. The Court Receiver will supervise the work of photography and videography to be arranged by the Plaintifs. Again initially at the costs of the Plaintif but recoverable as costs with interest at a later stage.
34. I will require a report of the Court Receiver in urgency. Place the matter for further directions and orders on 29th January 2021.
35. The Plaintifs have kept in a sealed envelope their confrmation information and trade secrets. At this stage, that envelope is not to be opened. I only want an inventory of what is found in the Defendants premises. The necessary comparison will be done at a later stage.
36. The Court Receiver is not to make any decision as to what is or is not confdential or proprietary.
37. The Court Receiver is not to remove or uninstall any item of machinery. It is clarifed that if the technical experts say that a panel for instance or some other item needs to be removed temporarily to inventory what is behind it, this may be permitted provided that the removed items are placed back in the same way.
38. I am also making it clear that I am indeed appointing a Receiver of the entire plant and machinery at the 2nd Defendantfs installation at Belgavi for a limited period of time until 29th January 2021. The Court Receiver is not appointed of the premises.
Page 20 of 2125th January 2021 20-IAL-4637-2020 IN COMIPL-4636-2020 WITH LPETNL-4638-2020.DOC
39. It will be open to the Defendants to seek a variation, modifcation or recall of this order or any part of this order after having taken fuller instructions.
40. The 1st Defendant is not to be anywhere within the vicinity of the 2nd Defendantfs plant. The 1st Defendant says that he is not employed by the 2nd Defendant. Until further orders of this Court, the 1st Defendant will not visit Belgavi without prior leave of this Court.
41. The Defendantsf Advocates will communicate this order to their respective clients. This order has been dictated in open Court and I believe I am sufciently audible to all concerned.
42. The Court Receiverfs work may begin tonight itself and the 2nd Defendant is to cooperate. He will not refuse to open his plant at Belgavi for the Court Receiver irrespective of the time when this is required.
43. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 21 of 21 25th January 2021