Karnataka High Court
M/S Fenwick And Ravi vs Mr Robin Chacko on 24 June, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
O.S.NO.3/2013 C/W W.P.NO.51646/2013 (GM-CPC)
& W.P.NO.56896/2013 (GM-CPC)
IN O.S.NO.3/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S FENWICK AND RAVI,
(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM
UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT:
NO.10/3, LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD
(OFF JALAHALLI WEST),
ABBIGERE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE-560 090,
REP. HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER
MR.R.RAVI. ... PLAINTIFF
(BY SRI: ADITYA CHATTERJEE AND SRI.ARUN SRI.KUMAR, ADVs.)
AND:
1.MR.ROBIN CHACKO,
SON OF MR.P.G.CHACKO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF "M/S BLUE LINE ENGINEERING",
NO.5, 13TH CROSS, BLUE LINE BUILDING,
KALA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE-560 015,
AND ALSO AT:
MR.ROBIN CHACKO, 39/3,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
JALAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 013.
2.MR.MADHU.A.B,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF,
AGED: MAJOR (ABOUT 36 YEARS)
C/O. M/S ARMS AUTOMATION,
PAGE NOS.1 TO 13 ARE RETYPED AND REPLACED VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 04/07/2014.
2
NO.5, 13TH CROSS, BLUE LINE BUILDING,
KALA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE-560 015.
3.M/S ARMS AUTOMATION,
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932),
NO.5, 13TH CROSS, BLUE LINE BUILDING,
KALA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE-560 015,
REP. BY: MR.ROBIN CHACKO, PARTNER.
4.MR.N.K.SAJAN,
SON OF LATE P.V.SANKARANKUTTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O M/S SAJRAJ TECHNOLOGIES,
1253/7, 12TH CROSS,
CHANDRIKA PATTERN BUILDING,
KALANAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015.
AND ALSO AT:
MR.N.K.SAJAN,
NO.83, VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE 560 090.
5.MR.ANIL RAJ,
SON OF MR.BALAKRISHNAN.D,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O M/S. SAJRAJ TECHNOLOGIES,
1253/7, 12TH CROSS,
CHANDRIKA PATTERN BUILDING,
KALANAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015,
AND ALSO AT:
MR.ANIL RAJ,
"GOKULAM", PLOT NO.13,
11TH CROSS, KALANAGAR,
K.G.HALLI, BANGALORE-560 015.
6.M/S SAJRAJ TECHNOLOGIES,
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932),
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT:
3
1253/7, 12TH CROSS,
CHANDRIKA PATTERN BUILDING,
KALANAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015,
REP. BY: MR.N.K.SAJAN, PARTNER. ... DEFENDANTS
(BY SRI: M.RAVI PRAKASH FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.S.HEMANTH AND
SRI.RUDRESHA.S.L., ADVs. FOR R4 TO R6)
O.S.3111/13 IS TRANSFERED FROM THE FILE OF XVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-10), BANGALORE AND THE
SAME IS RE-NUMBERED IN THIS HON'BLE COURT AS OS. 3/2013.
O.S.NO.3/13 IS FILED U/O.7 RULES 1 & 2 CPC, PRAYING TO
GRANT A DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
DEFENDANTS HEREIN FROM UTILISING, DEALING IN ANY MANNER IN
OR DISCLOSING ANY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE
PLAINTIFF AS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE ETC.
IN W.P.NO.51646/2013 & W.P.NO.56896/2013:
BETWEEN:
M/S FENWICK AND RAVI,
(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM
UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT:
NO.10/3, LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD
(OFF JALAHALLI WEST),
ABBIGERE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE-560 090,
REP. HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER
MR.R.RAVI. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ADITYA CHATTERJEE AND SRI.ARUN SRI KUMAR, ADVs.)
AND:
1.MR.ROBIN CHACKO,
SON OF MR.P.G.CHACKO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF "M/S BLUE LINE ENGINEERING",
NO.5, 13TH CROSS, BLUR LINE BUILDING,
KALA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE-560 015,
AND ALSO AT: 39/3,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
JALAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 013.
4
2.MR.MADHU.A.B,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF,
AGED: MAJOR (ABOUT 36 YEARS)
C/O. M/S ARMS AUTOMATION,
NO.5, 13TH CROSS,
BLUE LINE BUILDING,
KALA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015.
3.M/S ARMS AUTOMATION,
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932),
NO.5, 13TH CROSS, BLUE LINE BUILDING,
KALA NAGAR, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE-560 015,
REP. BY: MR.ROBIN CHACKO, PARTNER.
4.MR.N.K.SAJAN,
SON OF LATE P.V.SANKARANKUTTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O M/S SAJRAJ TECHNOLOGIES,
1253/7, 12TH CROSS,
CHANDRIKA PATTERN BUILDING,
KALANAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015.
AND ALSO AT:
MR.N.K.SAJAN,
NO.83, VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE 560 090.
5.MR.ANIL RAJ,
SON OF MR.BALAKRISHNAN.D,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O M/S. SAJRAJ TECHNOLOGIES,
1253/7, 12TH CROSS,
CHANDRIKA PATTERN BUILDING,
KALANAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015,
AND ALSO AT:
MR.ANIL RAJ,
"GOKULAM", PLOT NO.13,
11TH CROSS, KALANAGAR,
5
K.G.HALLI,
BANGALORE-560 015.
6.M/S SAJRAJ TECHNOLOGIES,
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932),
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT:
1253/7, 12TH CROSS,
CHANDRIKA PATTERN BUILDING,
KALANAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015,
REP. BY: MR.N.K.SAJAN, PARTNER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: M.RAVI PRAKASH FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.S.HEMANTH FOR
R4 TO R6)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH AND THUS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
3.10.2013 AT ANN-A THAT WAS PRONOUNCED BY THE HON'BLE
CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE ON I.A. NO.3 FILED IN O.S.
NO.3111/2013.
THIS SUIT AND PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though these writ petitions are listed for admission, with the consent of counsel for the parties, I have heard the same finally. The suit arises out of the order impugned in these writ petitions.
2. The petitioner has assailed order dated 03/10/2013 (Annexure-A) passed in O.S.No.3111/2013, which was filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. 6
3. The facts germane to the disposal of these writ petitions are, that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from, in any manner utilizing, dealing or disclosing any confidential information of the plaintiff as set out in the schedule thereunder and other reliefs. In response to the suit, the respondents herein, who are the defendants in the suit filed their written statement and also filed an application (I.A.No.III) under sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). That application was considered by the Trial Court and has been allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by that order, the plaintiff has assailed in these writ petitions. In substance, the impugned order has transferred suit O.S.No.3111/2013 from the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, to this Court to be registered as Original Suit to be tried by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
7
5. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the fact that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.3113/13 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, invoking Section 22 of the Design Act, 2000. Under sub-section (4) of Section 22 of that Act, the trial Court had passed an order of transfer of that suit to this Court and on transfer, it has been numbered as O.S.No.1/13 by this Court. That suit which is purely pertaining to one regarding violation of the copyright in a registered design has been tried by this Court and the matter is now reserved for orders. But the present suit, which is transferred to this Court i.e., O.S.No.3111/13 is one seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents, based not on the registered design, but on the basis of certain confidential information pertaining to the petitioner's business likely to be divulged by the respondents, during the course of their business and also utilized in their business, which would harm the business of the petitioner. Therefore, a decree of permanent injunction has been sought in the suit which relief is one under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and in Common Law and not under Designs Act, 2000. It is, therefore, 8 contended that the trial court was not right in allowing the application filed under sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Act by transferring the suit to this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that in essence the suit is based on petitioner's registered design and therefore, the impugned order of transfer would not call for any interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the prayer sought by the petitioner in the suit O.S.No.3111/13 are as follows in respect of the following schedule:
"WHEREFORE the plaintiff above-named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
(a) Grant a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants herein from in any manner utilizing, dealing in or disclosing any of the confidential information of the Plaintiff, as set out in the Schedule hereto;
(b) Direct the Defendants, jointly and severally, to render accounts to the Plaintiff of all amounts earned by any of them (singly 9 or jointly) from their use (whether directly or indirectly) of the Plaintiff's confidential information, and further direct the Defendants to compensate the Plaintiff in the said sum;
(c) Grant costs of these proceedings; and
(d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
SCHEDULE (Description of Plaintiff's confidential information) All information generated, compiled, collated or available with the Plaintiff which is not otherwise disclosed in the public domain, including (without limitation):
- the business processes and methodologies adopted by the Plaintiff in the course of manufacturing and marketing its products,
- all the product drawings, diagrams and designs reduced by the Plaintiff to writing on paper and/or depicted by it in digital format on electronic media, with respect to Bar Feeders and Steady Rests
- technical specifications determined by the Plaintiff for the manufacture of its 10 various models of Bar Feeders and Steady Rests; the operating instructions and technical parameters for CNC-
turning centres; the hardware and software configuration information for various equipments used by the Plaintiff in the course of manufacturing Steady Rests and Bar Feeders
- the Plaintiff's business plans, client lists and client contact information, price lists and quotations, product development notes for future and upcoming models, internally-prepared market analysis reports, strategic business plans and marketing plans, industry outlook reports,
- the plaintiff's correspondence, contracts signed by it with distributors and vendors, annexures to such contracts (including drawings shared by clients for manufacturing custom-designed products), user feedback received by the Plaintiff regarding its products and services, emails addressed to the Plaintiff or by the Plaintiff (both internally, and also to external parties on terms of confidentially) 11
- the Plaintiff's inventory and stock-
keeping information"
The aforesaid prayer can be compared with the prayers sought by the very same petitioner in O.S.No.1/13, which arose out of O.S.No.3113/13, which is now pending before this court, which read as under:
"a) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants herein - whether directly or indirectly (i.e., through any of their agents, employees, servants, henchmen etc.)
- from in any manner applying, or causing to be applied, or doing anything with a view to enabling to be applied, to any articles in Class 15-09 that are manufactured, marketed or sold by them, the registered design of the Plaintiff for 'Self-Centering Steady with Rear Mounted Cylinder' (under Design No.212711);
b) Direct the Defendants, jointly and severally, to render accounts to the Plaintiff of all amounts earned by any of them (singly or jointly) from their piracy of the Plaintiff's registered design under Design No.212711, and further direct the Defendants to compensate the Plaintiff in the said sum."
8. On a comparison of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the two suits, it is evident that in 12 O.S.No.1/13, the petitioner has sought to protect its rights in respect of its registered Design No.212711 and has sought reliefs by invoking Section 22 of the Designs Act. But the relief sought by the petitioner in O.S.No.3111/13 have nothing to do with the reliefs sought by the petitioner in O.S.No.1/13 pending before this Court. In essence, O.S.No.3111/13 is one for permanent injunction against the respondents in respect of confidential information as set out in schedule to the plaint. The petitioner is not seeking protection of its rights under Section 22 of the Act in respect of any of the registered design in the said suit. Therefore, the trial court was not right in allowing the application filed by the respondents herein under sub- section (4) of Section 22 of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. Writ petitions are allowed. O.S.No.3111/13 is restored on the file of the trial court. Consequently, O.S.No.3/13, which arises out of the impugned order stands dismissed as having become infructuous and I.A. 1/13 filed for temporary injunction would also not survive for consideration and is ordered to be heard by trial court.
13
9. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are defendant Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.3111/13 states that written statement has been filed on their behalf before this court in O.S.No.3/13. The Registry is directed to transmit all the records pertaining to O.S.No.3111/13 to the trial court forthwith including the written statement filed in O.S.No.3/13.
10. As all parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the trial court on 21/07/2014 without insisting on any separate notice from that court. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*