Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Solulever India Private Limited vs Rajat Sabharwal & Ors on 21 December, 2022

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~19
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CS(COMM) 889/2022
                                 SOLULEVER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED                            ..... Plaintiff
                                                    Through:      Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Rajeev
                                                                  Aggarwal and Ms. Divyanshi Bansal,
                                                                  Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                 RAJAT SABHARWAL & ORS.                                  ..... Defendants
                                                    Through:      Mr. Ashutosh Nagar, Advocate for D-
                                                                  1.
                                                                  Mr. Abhishek Kotnala, Advocate for
                                                                  D-2 to 7.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                                    ORDER

% 21.12.2022 I.A. 21901/2022 (exemption from filing original, legible/ true typed copy of documents)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Plaintiff shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 21902/2022 (u/ Section 151 of CPC for exemption from instituting pre- litigation mediation)

4. Having regard to the facts of the present case and in light of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 889/2022 Page 1 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:22.12.2022 16:24:24 judgement of Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd.,1 exemption from attempting pre- institution mediation is allowed.

5. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 21900/2022 (exemption from filing source codes of the plaintiff company in the present case)

6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by counsel for Defendants mentioned in the appearance above.

7. List before the Court on 11th July, 2023.

CS(COMM) 889/2022

8. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

9. Issue summons. Summons are accepted by Mr. Ashutosh Nagar, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Kotnala, Advocate for Defendant No. 1 and Defendants No. 2 to 7, respectively, who appear on advance notice. Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, counsel for Plaintiff, states the advance copy of paper- book served on the Defendants has not undergone any modifications, nevertheless, another copy would be served on counsel for Defendants today itself.

10. Written statement(s) on behalf of Defendants be filed within 30 days from today. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

DHC Neutral Citation: 2022/DHC/004454.

11. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file replication(s) within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s), if any, filed by the Plaintiffs, affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the Defendant, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

12. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 02nd March, 2023. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

13. List before Court for framing of issues thereafter.

I.A. 21899/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, CPC read with Section 151, CPC)

14. The Court has heard Mr. Mehta, counsel for Plaintiff, as well as Mr. Nagar and Mr. Kotnala, counsel for Defendants, at sufficient length.

15. Plaintiff alleges infringement of copyright in its computer source codes and divulgence of confidential information/ data by Defendants No. 1 to 6 - former employees. Mr. Mehta submits that Defendant No. 1 - erstwhile CTO of Plaintiff-company has orchestrated migration of source codes to a private account on GitLab, control whereof rested solely with him. He places reliance on statements of several former and current employees of Plaintiff-company explaining the modus operandi for migration of company data to another account. Thus, Defendant No. 1, with the aid of Defendants No. 2 to 6, has stolen company data, and is revealing the same to its competitor viz. Defendant No. 7. Mr. Mehta explains such Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 889/2022 Page 3 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:22.12.2022 16:24:24 transfer of source codes is violative of company policies as employees were made to use their personal e-mail IDs instead of company assigned ones, and amounts to theft.

16. During the course of submissions, Mr. Nagar has handed over a translated copy of the decision rendered by North Holland Court, Germany in a suit filed by Defendant No. 1 alleging unlawful termination by Plaintiff- company. In said suit, Plaintiff had, by way of a counter claim, also pressed for damages for transfer of software code, which forms subject matter of the present suit. Mr. Nagar contends that as North Holland Court ruled in favour of Defendant No. 1, Plaintiff has maliciously filed the present suit as a counter blast to the litigation initiated by Defendant No. 1.

17. Mr. Kotnala joins Mr. Nagar and additionally submits that Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are unnecessarily being dragged into litigation because they deposed in favour of Defendant No. 1 before the court in Netherlands. Further, Defendant No. 7 is a UAE based company, which is unrelated to the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

18. Without prejudice to their rights and contentions, Mr. Nagar and Mr. Kotnala state that allegedly stolen source codes are not available with the Defendants.

19. In light of afore-noted contentions, Mr. Mehta submits that, at this stage, he is not pressing for any ex-parte ad-interim injunction and seeks time to make further investigations and find proof of theft, including time stamps indicating time of copying of source codes.

20. Issue notice. Counsel mentioned in appearance above, accept notice on behalf of Defendants. Let reply, if any, be filed within four weeks from today.

21. List before Court on 11th July, 2023.

SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 21, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 889/2022 Page 5 of 5 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:22.12.2022 16:24:24