Delhi District Court
M/S. Metrix Research And Analytics ... vs Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi on 19 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 03 - SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) 1218/2022
In the matter of :
M/S METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS
PRIVATE LIMITED
having its Registered office at :
72, Taimoor Nagar Basement,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110065 ..... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
S/o Sh. Virendra Mani Tripathi
Village - Bhelaya, Post Chandrauta
District Kushinagar, U.P.
Also at :
16/1, Red Colony,
Sahupuri, Varanasi-221009, U.P.
Also at :
719-1, Ward No. 22
Uma Nagar, Deoria, U.P.-274001
And having his office at :
G.F.K. Nielsen India Private Limited
CS (COMM) 1218/22
M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 1/37
Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
7th Floor, Vatika Towers, Block B
Sector 54, Golf Course Road,
Gurugram, Haryana -122003 .....DEFENDANT
Date of e-filing : 19.12.2022
Date of Institution and
receiving physical file : 20.12.2022
Date when final arguments heard : 17.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant for permanent and mandatory injunction, damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- rendition of account and delivery of all the private, confidential and proprietary information relating to the plaintiff's business.
PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a registered private limited company engaged in the business of retail market research and data analytics. It provides market intelligence reports related to products such as small home appliances like Air CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 2/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI Coolers, Fans, Gas Stoves and Pressure Cookers in addition to 13 other product categories to reputed clients. The plaintiff has developed proprietary methodology and research process to prepare these unique market reports. It is submitted that the plaintiff continuously upgrades its research methodologies to arrive at accurate results to sustain its reputation of generating reliable data reports. For this purpose, it incurs more than Rs. 30,00,000/- once every 4 years.
3. It is submitted by the plaintiff that vide letter of appointment dated 16.02.2015, defendant was employed by the plaintiff on the post of Research Executive on a pay scale of Rs. 3,60,000/- p.a. The defendant was required to maintain high standards of loyalty, efficiency, integrity and secrecy in the achievement of performance objectives and to not divulge in any manner the particulars or details of any organizational matter of the plaintiff related to their clients, or any internal matter during the continuance of employment or thereafter. He was not to share any information of confidential nature that he may acquire during the course of his employment concerning plaintiff's business, property, contracts, trade confidential matters, trade secrets, transaction details, information related to clients etc. CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 3/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant was entrusted with the responsibility of the 'panel management' including safe keeping of all the research tools, unrestricted access to panel outlets, access to modern trade data structure and coding, outlet level data analysis, maintaining and updating panel level database for all Audits, panel correction and replacement task, maintaining auditor wise field work status, panel check for all audits, droid survey for all audits, upkeep and return of all documents and property entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant. Vide letter dated 01.07.2021, defendant was promoted to the position of Senior Manager, Panel Analytics and Management with enhanced remuneration. During the course of his employment with the plaintiff, the defendant participated in important business functions of the plaintiff and learnt large number of trade secrets related to the research process and methodology.
5. It is submitted by the plaintiff that shortly after being promoted to the position of Senior Manager, Panel Analytics and Management, defendant resigned from the service on personal grounds for joining his family business of Pharmaceuticals trading and Gorakhpur. His resignation was accepted in November 2021. It is alleged that soon after submitting his resignation, defendant started approaching the business CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 4/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI competitors of the plaintiff for employment at a high position discretely flaunting the confidential and privileged information and the market data of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant had joined GFK Nielsen India Pvt Ltd at a core position where he shall imminently share the confidential and propitiatory information of the plaintiff. He has also been clandestinely approaching the trade constituents of the plaintiff in an attempt to wean them away from the plaintiff. The confidential data, research analytical tools and market reports acquired by the plaintiff during his employment with the plaintiff has also been used by the defendant at the place of his current employment.
6. It is submitted by the plaintiff that upon learning of the dishonest conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff issued a Legal Notice of Restraint served upon the defendant by e-mail, registered post and courier at his Delhi and Varanasi addresses.
7. The plaintiff has sought permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant restraining him from divulging any private, confidential and propitiatory information relating to plaintiff's business. A decree of damages in sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the wrongful loss caused to the plaintiff has also been sought. Plaintiff also sought rendition of accounts by the defendant of all the illegal profits made by him by using the CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 5/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI confidential information relating to plaintiff's business. Further, plaintiff has sought a direction against the defendant to deliver all the private, confidential and proprietary information related to plaintiff's business in his possession.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. In his written statement, the defendant has controverted the allegations of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the present suit is not maintainable as recourse to Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was not taken by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the present suit is not covered u/s 2(1)
(c)(xvii) of the Act. It is submitted that defendant was an employee of M/s Market Pulse from the 2011 till March 2013 and again re-joined it on 16.02.2015 as Research Executive till his resignation in the year 2021. After his resignation dated 03.09.2021, the defendant joined the office of GFK Global Company & MNC established in Nurenberg, Germany. Leading brands world wide have been receiving data and science innovation from GFK since 1934. Because of over work and eye problem, defendant left Market Pulse on 03.09.2021, and was scheduled to be relieved on 01.10.2021. On 22.09.2021, defendant sent an e-mail to HR with copies to their Reporting Manager and Company Director seeking smooth transition of the defendant's job, role and responsibilities including database, CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 6/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI process, data file, company's assets and all other related tasks that were assigned to the defendant. Vide e-mail dated 24.09.2021, Director of Market Pulse Company, Sh. Ejaz Hoda informed the defendant that he may be required to continue till 25.10.2021. It is submitted that on or before 25.10.2021, the defendant handed over all the assets such as Computer, Laptop, ID Card, Building Access Card, Database, Data files etc. and liabilities hand over to Market Pulse. The access to the official e-mail was also handed over. After taking the charge from the defendant, Market Pulse issued letter of experience to the defendant. The documents prepared by the defendant during the service period were sent through the official e-mail Id as demanded by Market Pulse. It is submitted that defendant was not aware of the business module of the plaintiff. The market reports of the plaintiff are not unique in India. Leading brands have been receiving data and science innovation from GFK (current employer of defendant) which is involved in legal, accounting, book keeping and auditing activities, tax consultancy, market research and public opinion polling, business and management consultancy. It is denied that the defendant was a former employee of the plaintiff. As per the letter of appointment dated 16.02.2015, issued by the company Market Pulse, either party was at liberty to terminate the agreement by giving one month notice. It has been denied that CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 7/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI defendant was promoted to the position of Senior Manager by the plaintiff. All the allegations and averments have been denied.
REPLICATION
9. In its replication, the plaintiff has denied the averments of the defendant and has reiterated its stand in the plaint. It is submitted that Market Pulse is an operational division of plaintiff company and it is reflected on the first page of appointment letter. It is submitted that summons in the present suit were also sent at the address of M/s GFK, Gurugram, Haryana but the process was back with the report 'left'.
ADMISSION /DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
10. Affidavits of admission denial of documents were filed by both the parties. Plaintiff admitted all the documents of the defendant. Defendant denied Board Resolution dated 08.09.2022 in favour of Sh. Ejaz Hoda, Director of the plaintiff company and Order dated 10.11.2022 vide which initial plaint was returned by the Court of Ld. ADJ, South-East, Saket for want of knowledge. He admitted remaining documents. His objection was that documents pertained to Market Pulse and not plaintiff company. Further, emails were sent through email id [email protected].
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 8/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI ISSUES
11. Following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 04.07.2024 :
1. Whether the sample based data, extrapolation of sample data, product coverage including all models and SKUs of the Plaintiff and panel management process which includes the Database of Retailers and the proprietary and confidential data of the Plaintiff has been or is being used by the Defendant after leaving the employment of the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to protect its private, confidential and proprietary information relating the Plaintiff's business against the Defendant from disclosing or divulging any? OPP
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant from disclosing or divulging any private, confidential and proprietary information relating the Plaintiffs business? OPP
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Damages of Rs. 10,00,000/-
from the Defendant for the wrongful loss caused to the Plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the seek of Rendition of Accounts from the Defendant of all the profits made by him by using the private, confidential and CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 9/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI proprietary information relating to the Plaintiffs business? OPP
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff all the private, confidential and proprietary information relating the Plaintiff's business, in his possession? OPP
7. Whether the Defendant was not an employee of the Plaintiff? OPD
8. Whether there any commercial dispute is made out or not ? OPD
9. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
12. Plaintiff examined its Director/ Chief Executive Officer, Sh. Ejaz Hoda as PW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. He has relied upon following documents. Original copy of Board Resolution dated 08.09.2022 is Ex.PW-1/1. Photocopy of the resume sent by the Defendant is Ex.PW-1/2. Office copy of the letter of appointment dated 16.02.2015 is Ex.PW-1/3. Printout of the power point presentation of May 202l is Ex. PW-1/4. Printout of the email dated 10.06.2021 is Ex.PW-1/5. The photocopy of the promotion letter dated 01.07.2021 is Ex. PW- 1/6. Printout of the email dated 04.08.2021 is Ex.PW-1/7. Printout of the email dated 01.09.2021 is Ex.PW-1/8. Printout of the email dated 03.09.2021 is Ex.PW-1/9. Printout of the email CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 10/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI dated 07.09.2021 is Ex.PW-1/10. Printout copy of the email dated 15.09.2021 is Ex.PW-1/11. Printout of the email dated 22.09.2021 is Ex.PW-1/12. Printout of the email dated 24.09.2021 is Ex.PW-1/13. Printout of the email dated 06.10.2021 is Ex.PW-1/14. Printout of the email dated 09.10.2021 is Ex.PW-1/15. Printout of the email dated 14.10.2021 is Ex.PW-1/16. Printout of the email dated 25.10.2021 is Ex.PW-1/17. Printout of the email dated 25.10.2021 is Ex.PW-1/18. Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/19.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
13. Defendant examined himself as DW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex. DW1/A1. He has relied upon following document. Copy of Aadhaar Card is Ex.DW-1/A. Copy of Appointment Letter dated 01.11.2011 is Ex. as DW-1/B. Copy of Experience Certificate dated 23.09.2014 is Ex. as DW-1/C. Copy of Appointment Letter dated 16.02.2015 is Ex. as DW-1/D/PW- 1/3. Copy of email dated 03.09.2021 is Ex. as DW-1/E/PW-1/9. Copy of Relieving-Cum-Experience Certificate dated 25.10.2021 is Ex. as DW-1/F.
14. I have heard the detailed final arguments on behalf of both the parties and have perused the record carefully CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 11/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI including the written submissions of the parties as well as case laws relied upon by them.
15. During the course of arguments, plaintiff has relied upon following case laws:
"1. Vijaya Bank & Anr. Vs. Prashant B Naranaware (2025) SCC Online SC 1107;
2. John Richard Brady & Ors. Vs. Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd & Ors AIR 1987 DEL 372;
3. Niranjan Shankar Golikari Vs. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd (1967) 2 SCR 378;
4. Diljeet Titus Vs. Alfred A. Adebare & Ors. (2006) SCC Online Del 551;
5. Burlington Home Shopping Pvt Ltd Vs. Rajnish Chibber & Anr. 1995 (35) DRJ 335 (DEL);
6. Ms. T.M. Mohana D/o Muthukumaraswamy Vs. V. Kannan 1983 (96) LW595 = AIR 1984 MAD 14;
7. Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer & Anr. (2024) 2 SCC 144;
8. Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Soc. Ltd. Vs. State of TN & Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 514;
9. Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh (1992) 1 SCC 647;
10. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1"
16. The defendant has relied upon following case laws:
"1. Zee Telefilms Ltd and Film And Shot VS. Sundial CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 12/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI Communications Pvt Ltd 2003(5) BOMCR404:
2. Judgment dated 23.04.2012 of Hon'ble Madras Hihg Court in O.A. Nos. 321, 322 and 326 of 2012 titled as RP Partners VS.
Kumarpal:
3. American Express Bank Ltd Vs. Ms. Priya Puri (2006)IIILLJ54DEL;
4. Satish Kumar Vs. Khushboo Singh & Ors. AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 2623"
DISCUSSION
17. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE No.7 "7. Whether the Defendant was not an employee of the Plaintiff? OPD"
18. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
19. Case of the defendant is that for the period from February, 2015 to 25th October, 2021, he was an employee of Market Pulse and not of Metrix Research and Analytics Pvt. Ltd.
20. The letter of appointment dated 16.02.2015 issued by Market Pulse in favour of defendant is Ex.PW1/3. This document is an admitted one. In this document, it is clearly CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 13/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI mentioned at the bottom 'Market Pulse (A Division of Metrix Research and Analytics Private Limited)'.
21. Ex.DW/PW1/1 is the Current & Saving Account Statement of the defendant. This document was put to PW1 during the cross-examination by the defendant. Against each of the salary entry, description 'By TR MARKET PULSE (METRI 90071400000079' is mentioned.
22. The defendant could not discharge the onus to show that Market Pulse and the plaintiff company are two separate entities. As is apparent from the letter of appointment of the defendant (Ex.PW1/3), Market Pulse is only a division of the plaintiff company. The defendant was, thus, an employee of the plaintiff company till 25.10.2025.
23. The issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE No.8 "8. Whether there any commercial dispute is made out or not ? OPD"
24. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 14/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
25. Vide order dated 01.06.2024, upon an application under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, it was held by my Ld. Predecessor that the present suit relates to trade secrets which comes under the category of commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order was never challenged by the defendant. Contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is that the present case involves unregistered copyright of the plaintiff in the database developed by it.
26. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Judgment dated 20.10.1995 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suit No.1469/1990 (IA No.6099/93 and 6887/93) titled as Burlington Home Shopping Private Limited Vs. Rajnish Chibber & Anr. wherein the issue before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was whether a database consisting of compilation of mailing addresses of customers can be subject matter of a copyright and whether the defendant can be said to have committed infringement of plaintiff's copyright. It was held that a compilation of addresses developed by anyone by devoting time, money, labour and skill through sources may be commonly situated amounts to a 'literary work' wherein the author has a copyright. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Court Commissioner who visited the premises of the defendant therein, operated the computer available by utilizing the CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 15/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI defendant's floppies. Floppies were seized and produced before the Court. Upon comparison of the data made available by the plaintiff and the data available on the said floppies, it was found that a substantial number of entries are comparable word by word, line by line and even space by space. Even spelling mistakes occurring in plaintiff's data were found in the data compilation of the defendant. It was held that these circumstances provided an intrinsic irrebuttable circumstantial evidence of the defendant having indulged into slavish imitation of plaintiff's compilation, making out a clear case of infringement of copyright.
27. Plaintiff has also relied upon Diljeet Titus Vs. Alfred A Adebare & Ors. (2006) SCC Online Del 551 wherein it has been held that there is no dispute that the work falls within the definition of literary work within the meaning of Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act as the definition include computer database. Section 17 provides that the first owner of the copyright is the owner but the same is subject to various proviso including Proviso (c) which makes the work during a contract of service to subsist in the employer.
28. Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that "literary work" includes "computer programmes, tables and CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 16/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI compilations including computer data basis." Section 17 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. Proviso (c) provides that in the case of a work made in the course of author's employment under a contract of service of apprenticeship, to which clause (a) and clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.
29. Section 2 (1) (c) (xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that "commercial disputes" means a dispute arising out of (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to register and unregistered trademarks, copyrights, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semi-conductor integrated circuits."
30. As discussed in preceding paragraphs, the computer database constitutes literary work upon which copyright can be claimed by the author and the employer shall be the first owner of the copyright in absence of any agreement to the contrary.
31. The present suit, therefore, falls within the ambit of commercial disputes as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) (xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 17/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
32. The issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NOs. 1 to 6 "1. Whether the sample based data, extrapolation of sample data, product coverage including all models and SKUs of the Plaintiff and panel management process which includes the Database of Retailers and the proprietary and confidential data of the Plaintiff has been or is being used by the Defendant after leaving the employment of the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to protect its private, confidential and proprietary information relating the Plaintiff's business against the Defendant from disclosing or divulging any? OPP
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant from disclosing or divulging any private, confidential and proprietary information relating the Plaintiffs business? OPP
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Damages of Rs. 10,00,000/-
from the Defendant for the wrongful loss caused to the Plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the seek of Rendition of Accounts from the CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 18/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI Defendant of all the profits made by him by using the private, confidential and proprietary information relating to the Plaintiffs business? OPP
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff all the private, confidential and proprietary information relating the Plaintiff's business, in his possession? OPP"
33. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff. Since these issues require adjudication of the core question whether the defendant unauthorizedly disseminated trade secrets of the plaintiff to his new employer, I shall deal with them together. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff also submitted during the course of final arguments that these issues should be considered together.
34. In Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Mehar Karan Singh (2010 (112) BomLR 375), it was held that the elements which could be identified as a trade secret, although the exact definition may not be possible, were as the following :
• the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, namely employees;
• the precautions taken by the holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy;
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 19/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI • the savings affected and the value to the holder in having the information as against competitors; • the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing the information; and • the amount of time and expense it would take others to acquire and duplicate the information.
35. The trade secrets of the plaintiff alleged to have been unauthorizedly transferred by the defendant to his employer GFK Nielsen have been explained in para 3 (iv) of the plaint. I shall mention them in brief.
36. The case of the plaintiff is that it prepares and provides its clients the market reports every month for building electrical products, LED lighting, electrical fans, non-electrical kitchen appliances, modern mattresses and more recently inner wear apparel. These market reports are prepared by using its unique research. Its research methodology involves the following process:
(a) Selection of cities representing urban market in India accurately is done. The set of cities is revised every four years. The details of the larger cities forming the data base are disclosed to the plaintiff's clients. The smaller ones with less than 1 lakh population are not disclosed.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 20/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
(b) All the retail outlets that sell a specific product under study in each of the identified cities are mapped and enumerated.
(c) Lately, the plaintiff has developed a new cost effective method to estimate the number of retail outlets in 100+ cities that sell specific products.
(d) A sample of store outlets out of the larger universe that accurately represents the market in every city is selected and is referred to as Panel of Outlets. The Panel of Outlets are revised/fine tuned every year and constitutes the most confidential part of the plaintiff and an important proprietary asset.
(e) Sales data is collected from the retail outlets every month from the panel of outlets in a pre-defined format. The set of Stock Keeping Units (SKU) and models of different products for which the sales data is collected has been developed over many years and also on the basis of inputs from plaintiff's client.
(f) The computation process is carried out by the plaintiff's Analysis Team using plaintiff's own in house developed software. This software extrapolates the sample data to entire market for the top 42 cities, each state and the country. It also uses a proprietary process. One of the elements of the process is 'Channels' which is the classification of the retail CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 21/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI outlets in two different categories. The type of outlets that constitute each channel is confidential.
(g) The processed data prepared by plaintiff's Analysis Team is then handed over to 'The Client Service and Market Insights Team'.
37. It has been argued that plaintiff collects raw data and applies its tool to generate market projection.
38. During the course of Final Arguments, Ld. counsel stressed primarily upon dissemination of (i) highly confidential information regarding database of Panel of Outlets and (ii) confidential information related to research methodology and analysis tool which includes in house developed software and sales data collected from panel of outlets in a pre-defined format.
39. I shall now consider whether the plaintiff took sufficient precautions for safeguarding its data and whether transfer of data from defendant to his new employer GFK Nielsen could be proved.
40. It is not disputed that after leaving plaintiff's employment, defendant did not start his own business in the same field. Rather he joined GFK Nielsen, a competitor of the CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 22/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI plaintiff company. As discussed above, grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant shared the above said highly confidential database and confidential methodology including in house built software and pre defined format of sales data collection with his new employer. So far as the software is concerned, defendant explained during the course of arguments that only the employees could have accessed it and access was barred upon their leaving the employment.
41. The cross-examination of PW1 would show that most of the confidential data is stored in plaintiff company's computer system and its cloud servers. Some of the confidential data is in the form of printout kept in the files in the office. Regarding the physical security measures taken to protect the confidential data till 2021, PW1 deposed that physical security measures include taking back of company assets from the employees who have left at the time of relieving. He further deposed that the electronic data was difficult to secure. Plaintiff has avoided to disclose what specific precautions were taken by it to guard its electronic data and also in what manner was it accessed by its employees. PW1 has deposed that confidentiality of information was conveyed to employees orally.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 23/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
42. No expert evidence has been led to show how the electronic data saved on plaintiff company's cloud server could have been downloaded or replicated by the plaintiff. No electronic footprint showing such replication or communication between defendant and GFK Nielsen prior to leaving of plaintiff's job by the defendant has been proved. There is not even an iota of electronic evidence or forensic examination showing transfer of electronic data by defendant to GFK Nielsen.
43. The plaintiff has not placed on record its data of Panel Outlets, pre-defined formats and software to show how these are unique and are being used by GFK Nielsen after unauthorized disclosure by the defendant. During the course of arguments, it was indicated by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that because of confidentiality issues, the data base was not placed on record. The Court does not agree with this contention. Maintaining confidentiality of data with limited access to the defendant could have been arranged in the Court.
44. There is no such evidence that would allow the Court to compare the database of plaintiff with that of GFK Nielsen to reach the conclusion that GFK Nielsen is using the database and methodology as well as research tools developed by the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 24/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
45. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the GFK used the same panel of outlets as that of the plaintiff company for market survey or that it used plaintiff's research tools to make projections. Without such proof , the plaintiff's case that defendant shared its trade secrets with GFK company does not stand. Even if it is presumed that the job profile of the defendant at GFK Nielsen is same as that he had when he was employed in the plaintiff company, it is not sufficient to reach the conclusion that the defendant has shared the trade secrets of the plaintiff company with the new employer GFK. If at all, the research and analysis tools and information of panel outlets have been allegedly used by GFK for its profit. GFK has not been made a party to the present suit. There is also no evidence to show that the new employer has expanded itself to South India only after joining of defendant. No evidence has been led on the loss of business suffered by the plaintiff company on account of alleged sharing of trade secrets by the defendant with GFK.
46. Now I shall consider the evidence led by the plaintiff to prove its case. The plaintiff has placed on record printout of a Power Point Presentation (Ex PW1/4) and certain emails to show the extent of the knowledge that the plaintiff had. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the power point CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 25/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI presentation given by the defendant shows that defendant had access to Survey Management, Panel Management, Panel Analytics. I shall consider this document alongwith email dated 10.06.2021( Ex PW1/5). The PPT shows that it is about Job description which includes Droid Survey, Panel Level Data base, payment mode, panel analytics etc. Plaintiff has not explained as to for whose benefit was this PPT prepared. It is DW1 who answered this issue during his cross-examination as follows:
"Q14. The witness is shown Ex.PW-1/4 which is the monthly Achievement Task Report of May , 2021 prepared by the defendant. Can you explain the nature and relevancy of this report to your job profile?
Ans. Assigned new role and job description by the company Market Pulse. The Ex.PW-1/4 was drafted by me on the instructions of the Market Pulse Management to project to the Management that activities that I would manage in my new role as Senior Manager, Panel Analytics & Management.
Q15. Please see Ex.PW-1/6 wherein you were promoted as Senior Manager, Panel Analytics & Management whereas the PPT Ex.PW- 1/4 was prepared to you before your promotion. I say that th Management Activities contained in Ex.PW-1/4 were being carried out by you since earlier and also in May, 2021. Is it correct? Ans. It is incorrect. (Vol. I was already appointed as Senior Manager, Panel CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 26/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI Analytics & Management earlier but the letter was issues later i.e. on 01.07.2021)."
47. Email Ex PW1/5 shows that the PPT was shared with Sh Biswas Chakrabarti, Sh Abhijeet Bajpai and Sh Ejaz Hoda ( PW1) for further inputs. This email further shows that another new employee had been trained in Droid Survey, Field Work Status etc. The defendant has also suggested in the email that the said new employee should work independently. PW1 has also deposed that the plaintiff company of which Market Pulse is a division does share from time to time confidential information and protective measures with all its employees. Thus, the plaintiff was not the only one who had access to the trade secrets of the plaintiff.
48. Ex PW1/6 which is a communication dated 01.07.2021 shows that the plaintiff was promoted to the post of Senior Manager - Panel Analytics & Management. During cross examination, PW1 avoided to answer the question as to how many employees were part of the Panel Analytics and Management team. It also leads to the conclusion that the defendant was not the only one who had access to the database (Panel of Outlets) and methodology of the plaintiff company.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 27/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
49. Ex PW1/3 is the letter of appointment in which clause 8 mandates that the employee shall not, at any time, either during the employment or thereafter divulge to any person, directly or indirectly any information of confidential nature. In respect of this clause, following question was put to PW1 during his cross examination:
"Q51. Is there any formal document or communication which Market Pulse has shared with the defendant mentioning breach of confidential information which is shared during or after the tenure of employment?
(Objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the ground of relevancy being outside the pleadings written statement) (Objection countered by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the same has been mentioned in the written statement) Ans. As conveyed earlier no written document is shared by our company Metrix Research and Analytic Pvt. Ltd. of which Market Pulse is a Division with any employee including the defendant. (Vol. As conveyed earlier, confidentiality of information is conveyed orally)"
50. Now I shall refer to the following cross examination of PW1:
"Q52. What preventive measures are taken by Market Pulse to ensure that their confidential information is protected?
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 28/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI Ans. Oral communication at the time of joining of new employees and reinforcement of the same at every quarter is one of the measures. Other measures include action against the employees who breached the confidentiality.
Q53. If any confidential information has been shared by the defendant, then how did you come to know that the defendant has used or has been using Market Pulse documents/ confidential information/ trade secrets after leaving his job, after 25.10.2021?
(Objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the ground of vagueness) Ans. Since the question does not include specific confidential information, I cannot say anything.
Q54. If any confidential information has been shared by the defendant, when and with whom the defendant had communicated any research document or research analysis activities/ confidential data information/ trade secret of the Market Pulse. Do you have evidence regarding the same?
(Objected by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the ground of speculative nature of the question omitting the particulars in the question) (Objection countered by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that the whole plaint is based upon this information) Ans. Some of our clients and retailers from whom we collect data have stated that they have been approached by the CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 29/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI defendant's current company for reports on industries covered by us, details of which are confidential. Yes, I have evidence regarding this and I have brought some of the evidence today.
Q55. Have you mentioned the name of the Traders/Retailer in the suit plaint or affidavit annexed therein?
Ans. No."
51. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has objected to Q 53 and Q 54 on the ground that the confidential information referred to in these questions has not been specified. Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that in the entire plaint and evidence, the plaintiff has also not specified which specific confidential information has been shared by the defendant and how. He also argued that the entire case of plaintiff is speculative.
52. Email dated 24.09.2021 Ex PW1/13 shows that the resignation of the defendant had been accepted and his relieving date was to depend on the satisfactory handover of the assets, processes etc. Ex.PW1/14 (email dated 06.10.2021), Ex.PW1/15 (email dated 09.10.2021), Ex.PW1/16 (email dated 14.10.2021), Ex.PW1/17 (email dated 25.10.2021) and Ex.PW1/18 (email dated 25.10.2021) are emails of defendant through official email id regarding various data updation, database with channel tagged and Retails Audit. Admittedly, the defendant was relieved on CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 30/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI 25.10.2021. A relieving certificate dated 25.10.2021 was also issued. There is nothing to show that the assets, processes etc were not satisfactorily handover by defendant to plaintiff.
53. As already discussed, there is no scientific/forensic evidence or otherwise that would show that the defendant had replicated the software and data base of the plaintiff company. Following question is vital :
Q54. If any confidential information has been shared by the defendant, when and with whom the defendant had communicated any research document or research analysis activities/ confidential data information/ trade secret of the Market Pulse. Do you have evidence regarding the same?
(Objected by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the ground of speculative nature of the question omitting the particulars in the question) (Objection countered by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that the whole plaint is based upon this information) Ans. Some of our clients and retailers from whom we collect data have stated that they have been approached by the defendant's current company for reports on industries covered by us, details of which are confidential. Yes, I have evidence regarding this and I have brought some of the evidence today.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 31/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
54. Thus, the only evidence that the plaintiff is relying upon to substantiate its case is information from clients and retailers. Admittedly, the names of the traders /clients/retailers who have provided such information have not been provided either in the plaint or in the affidavit in evidence.
55. During the course of cross-examination of DW1, plaintiff put certain emails to him. Ex.PW1/D2A is an email dated 19.08.2024 sent by Swarupa Ghosh, an employee of the plaintiff company to Ms. Radhika Mittal, another employee of the plaintiff company with copy to Sh. Biswa Chakrabarti, also working at plaintiff company. In this email, it has been informed that Market Excel employees are visiting the panel outlets (appliances and electrical) for last eight months but the gift that was being given by them had GFK written on it. It has also been informed that 9% to 10% of selected outlets at Kolkata and Asansol centres were visited by Market Excel. Ex.PW1/D2B is another email dated 19.08.2024 sent by Sh. Shant Kumar, an employee of plaintiff to Ms. Radhika Mittal, another employee of plaintiff with copy to Sh. Biswa Chakrabarti. Similar are the emails dated 19.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 (Ex.PW1/D2C). All these emails have also been forwarded to the legal counsel for the plaintiff on the same day. The said legal counsel had also issued legal notice dated 31.03.2022 against the defendant. I have considered these emails CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 32/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI carefully. Since the emails have been written by the employees of the plaintiff amongst themselves on 19.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 during the pendency of the present suit when the case had already been listed for recording of evidence, they must be approached with extreme caution.
56. It is also noteworthy that no permission of the Court was taken by the defendant before relying upon the above mentioned emails. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that u/O 11 R 1 (c)(i) CPC, no permission of the Court is required to be taken if the documents are produced and are relevant only for the cross examination of the defendant's witnesses. The Court does not agree with this contention of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. These emails had neither been sent by the defendant nor were they sent to the defendant. They do not constitute any statement, assertion or admission of the defendant. There is also nothing to show that the defendant had knowledge of these emails. These emails were sent by an employee of plaintiff to his superiors working in the plaintiff company itself during the pendency of the present suit. The Court is convinced that these emails have been put to the defendant during cross- examination only to bring them on record some how without seeking permission of the Court. These documents are not the ones which are relevant only for the purpose of cross-examination CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 33/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI of the DW but the case of the plaintiff itself is based on them. These documents have not been filed in answer to any case setup by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint. These emails are also not the ones which were needed to be handed over to the DW merely to refresh his memory. These documents placed on record without permission of Court, therefore, can not be relied upon.
57. Further, since these emails (Ex.PW1/D2A to Ex.PW1/D2C) are inter-se communication amongst the employees of plaintiff company during pendency of the suit, objective evidence should have been produced to corroborate the claim in these emails. The contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that these emails are manufactured documents to some how create evidence against the defendant cannot be ignored. In absence of any corroborative evidence, it cannot be inferred that Market Excel is surrogate of GFK Nielsen. Mentioning of 'GFK' on one of its gifts is not a sufficient proof.
58. I shall also refer to the following cross-examination of the plaintiff:
"Q93. Is it true that the defendant is not running any personal business where the confidential data related to Market Pulse is being used/utilized?
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 34/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the ground of misleading and composite question) Ans. Defendant is working in a company where the confidential data can be used and I am not aware of any personal business of his."
59. It is also submitted by the plaintiff in the plaint in para 3 (xiii) that the defendant has joined GFK Nielsen India Pvt Ltd at a core position where he imminently shall share the confidential and proprietary information of the plaintiff to boost his own prospect in the employment. Regarding the above said cross-examination of PW1 and above mentioned averment in the plaint, it is noted that Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure in India is not recognized in India. The plaintiff must prove actual disclosure by the defendant.
60. The plaintiff has tried to raise a case in its favour on the ground of deposition of DW1 wherein he testified that he never approached GFK Nielsen for job and GFK never asked for his job resume. DW1 further deposed that he was approached by GFK Nielsen in the last week of October 2021 after being relieved by the plaintiff company. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that this deposition of the defendant would show that it was not GFK Nielsen which approached the plaintiff CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 35/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI but it was the plaintiff who approached it with a view to share plaintiff's trade secrets and reap benefits out of it.
61. During the course of arguments, defendant explained that the employer companies also approach the potential candidates through websites like LinkedIn. The Court takes judicial notice of the facts that employees are also shortlisted and considered for employment through websites like LinkedIn.
62. The onus to prove that defendant unauthorizedly shared the confidential data of the plaintiff company with his new employer GFK Nielsen and that GFK Nielsen, in fact, used the said information causing business loss to the defendant and infringement of unregistered copyright of the plaintiff was upon the plaintiff. The evidence led by the plaintiff in its favour is deficient and largely conjectural. Plaintiff has failed to prove its case against the defendant. The issues are, thus, decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
63. In light of the findings of the Court in respect of Issues no. 1 to 6, the present case of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 36/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI
64. Decree sheet be prepared.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliances.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 Digitally signed by VRINDA (VRINDA KUMARI) VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2025.11.19 District Judge(Commercial Courts)-03, 16:46:42 +0530 SED/Saket Courts/Delhi (R) CS (COMM) 1218/22 M/S. METRIX RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 19.11.2025 Page 37/37 Vs. SHRI VINEET KUMAR TRIPATHI