Delhi District Court
M/S Jai Shree Holidays & Tours vs Sh. Ravi Sharma on 15 January, 2014
Suit No. 338/13
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 338/13
M/s Jai Shree Holidays & Tours
(P) Ltd. ........Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ravi Sharma ....Defendant
Order:
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the
defendant. The brief facts for the effectual disposal of the instant
application are as follows:
1.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a Travel agent and engaged in a business of all air tickets domestic and International, Holiday packages etc under the name and style of M/s Jai Shree Holidays & Tours (P) Ltd. That the defedt was the employee of the plaintiff company & employed vide appointment letter dt. 20.05.2011. That along with the said letter of appointment the defendant was also given the terms and condition of the employment which were duly signed by the defendant after understanding the same and undertook to abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned therein. That the defdt suddenly on 31.01.2012 in Jai Shree Holidays Vs Sh. Ravi Sharma 1/6 Suit No. 338/13 contravention to the terms and conditions of the employment without intimating to the plaintiff company, left the service without serving a notice of 90 days as was required. He was also required to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ which the defendant failed to pay. On the contrary, the defendant threatened the plaintiff's company that he would defame the plaintiff's company and pass over the information to the other competitors engaged in similar business if he is pressurized by the plaintiff's company to comply with the terms and conditions of employment. This constrained the plaintiff to file the present suit and press the instant application seeking relief that the defendant be restrained from divulging any confidential and sensitive information relating to the business of the plaintiff's company to his present employer or any other person till pendency of the suit.
2. In support of his contentions, plaintiff has filed various documents including the appointment letter and terms & conditions of employment dt. 03.05.12 along with notice dt. 07.02.2012, copy of the extracts the meeting of Board of Director dt. 03.02.2012 etc.
3. In response to this, the contentions of the plaint are vehemently denied and it is submitted that no term and condition of employment were informed to the defendant. however, he signed under pressure on some blank paper at the time of getting the employment. Further it is specifically Jai Shree Holidays Vs Sh. Ravi Sharma 2/6 Suit No. 338/13 denied that defdt left the plaintiff's company on its own. On the contrary, it is stated that it is the plaintiff company which did not allow the defendant to enter into the office premises without any reason and has not even paid him the salary for the month of January. Rest of the contentions are vehemently denied.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff and defendants respectively and gone through the material available on record.
5. It is a settled law that a party is entitled to an order of injunction only if he is able to satisfy the court that a strong prima facie case has been made out in his favour, the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and that refusal of injunction will cause an irreparable injury to him.
Prima facie case means that there is a likelihood of infraction of a legal right of the plaintiff by the defendant. It means that the case of the plaintiff raises a triable issue which needs investigation, consideration and adjudication.
The plaintiff is also to establish that balance of convenience lies in his favour. Balance of convenience connotes comparative mischief likely to be cause to either party in case of grant or refusal of relief of injunction.
The plaintiff is also to satisfy the court that noninterference by Jai Shree Holidays Vs Sh. Ravi Sharma 3/6 Suit No. 338/13 the court would result in an irreparable injury and that there is no other remedy available to him except one i.e. the grant of injunction in his favour. Irreparable injury means an injury which is a material one and one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. Further, it is a settled law that grant of temporary injunction is an equitable relief wherein the plaintiff has to satisfy the court that he has acted bonafidely.
6. It is not disputed that defendant had been employed with the plaintiff as a counter executive. The contentions of the plaintiff is that that the plaintiff left the job without any notice whereas on the other hand, it is the contention of the defdt that he was forced to leave the job by the plaintiff as he was not permitted to enter the office. This is a matter of trial and can be adjudicated only after both parties have led their respective evidence. As regards the terms and conditions of the employment the plaintiff has placed on record the copy of the terms of employment the plaintiff. According to clause 3 i.e Confidential Information: the defendant was to withhold confidential information and not to disclose any person regarding business or any corporation without written authorization of the defendants company any confidential information including the trade secrets, customer list, software developments, technology or any other business information of the plaintiff's company. The said terms had been Jai Shree Holidays Vs Sh. Ravi Sharma 4/6 Suit No. 338/13 duly signed by the defendant and even the defendant has admitted the signing of terms of the condition. The only contention is that he was made to sign on blank papers. However, this contentions prima facie appears to be unfounded as the terms are in printed format and there are no blank spaces. Even otherwise in common parlance such a cause of confidentiality becomes implicit as if confidential information is allowed to be divulged it could lead to great monitory loss and loss of reputation of a company and it is every employees responsibility not to divulge such vital information about / of the company to anyone. The said clause 3 of the present terms of employment is reproduced here for the sake of clarity Clause 3 reads as under:
I agree at all times during the term of employment and for a period fo 20 years thereafter, to hold in strictest confidence and not to use, except for the benefit of the Company, or to disclose to any person, firm or corporation without written authorization of the company the Confidential Information of the company . I understand that " Confidential Information"
means any company proprietary information, technical data, trade secrets or know how, including, but not limited to, research, product, services, customer lists and customers (including but not limited to, customers of the company on whom I call or with whom I became acquainted during the Jai Shree Holidays Vs Sh. Ravi Sharma 5/6 Suit No. 338/13 term of my employment)software, marketing, financial or other business information disclosed to me by the company either directly or indirectly in writing, orally or by drawings or observation.
7. In view of aforesaid discussions, the plaintiff has been successful in establish a prima facie case in its favour. Further if interim protection is not granted in favour of the plaintiff then it could lead to great monitory loss as well as damage to its reputation which could lead to irreparable loss. Even the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff's company since it is not disputed by the defdt that he is aware of the confidential information of the plaintiff's company as it came known to him during the course of employment with plaintiff's company. In view thereto the application is allowed. The defendant is restrained from divulging any confidential/sensitive information relating to the business of the plaintiff's company without due process of law to his employer if any and / or to any other person till the pendency of the case.
8. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Pronounced in the open court
today on 15.01.2014 (SHEFALI SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI, DELHI/ 15.01.2014
Jai Shree Holidays Vs Sh. Ravi Sharma 6/6