Delhi District Court
Cs No.191/2012: M/S Planman Consulting ... vs Shyam Sunder Pujala Dod:08.02.2013 on 8 February, 2013
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEIV:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.191/2012
UID No.: 02405C0253072010
In the matter of:
M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office,
48, Community Centre,
Naraina Industrial AreaI,
Naraina, New Delhi110 028.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Gulshan Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
Shri Shyam Sunder Pujala,
C/o Haji Villa, 237/A,
MLA Colony, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad500 034.
.....Defendant
(Through Shri P.D.P Deo, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 06.10.2010
Date of Transfer to this Court : 07.08.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 06.02.2013
Date of pronouncement : 08.02.2013
Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 1 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR Rs.10,00,000/ AND FOR GRANT OF
PROHIBITORY, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T:
The facts of the case, as borne out from the record are that plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the education business, having two sister concerns namely Indian Institute of Planning & Management and International Institute of Planning & Management (in short "IIPM"). The defendant joined the plaintiff company as an "Associate" at a monthly retainership fees of Rs.26,500/ and executed an Associate NonCompetition, NonDisclosure, NonSolicitation Agreement dated 02.01.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Agreement"). Right from the very inception of the Association of plaintiff with the defendant, he was informed about the delicate nature of his work profile and in lieu thereof a high level of skill building and confidentiality was expected of him. The defendant was hired as a novice and plaintiff invested a lot of money on his development by providing him special training in business development and business management. During the course of his association, the defendant had complete and exclusive access to the plaintiff's records, with all the confidential/classified/proprietary information about business. As per the terms of the said agreement, it was agreed and assured by the defendant that he would fulfill all duties related to the jobs assigned to him by the plaintiff and would not leave the plaintiff company, leaving any client's project incomplete and without the written permission of the plaintiff, for preventing any loss of professional reputation to the plaintiff and also to prevent loss of time and efforts of the client of plaintiff. It was further agreed that during the course of his association with the plaintiff and for a period of one year after Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 2 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 termination of his association, no matter how such termination had occurred, he will not solicit any person or entity, or actively solicit plaintiff's customer or client, at the time of such termination, wherever such prospective client might be located, with the objective of offering services of such kind as being present in the plaintiff company and not to accept any offer of association from any clients or from any of the plaintiff's user customers, whether such association be on a part time, full time, independent, contractual or on any other basis without the written consent of the plaintiff.
2. After remaining in the association of the plaintiff for almost ten years, on 18.03.2010 the defendant sent resignation mail to the plaintiff as one month's notice and expressed his desire to be relieved w.e.f 18.04.2010, so that he could join some other company. On 18.04.2010, the Final Clearance Form of the defendant was issued by the plaintiff after deducting a sum of Rs.1,79,000/ from the dues payable to him. In addition, a sum of Rs.48,000/ was also deducted towards the salary of the notice period. It has been alleged in the suit that the defendant has joined a competitor of plaintiff in Hyderabad and, as such has committed violation of Clause 7 of the said Agreement and by leaving the plaintiff in the midst of a project and further by imparting confidential, proprietary or secret information to the direct competitor of the plaintiff has not only harmed the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, but has also caused heavy financial losses to it. As such, on 02.07.2010, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant which was replied by him on 14.07.2010, thereby denying the allegations levelled by the plaintiff against him in the said legal notice. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, interalia seeking the following prayers:
Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 3 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
(i) A decree of Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant towards the damages sustained by the plaintiff;
(ii) A decree of prohibitory and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining him not to impart with directly or indirectly, in any business or activity such confidential, proprietary or secret information of the plaintiff (or its associate clients), in any manner, with any of its competitive company, dealing in education business and;
(iii) A decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing him to return/handover to the plaintiff all such classified, proprietary or secret information of the plaintiff, obtained by him during such association or any other information obtained or gained from the petitioner's client business agents.
3. Defendant has filed written statement, interalia taking the preliminary objections that the suit filed by the plaintiff suffers from acute vagueness and same is without any cause of action, the material facts have been suppressed; the suit is an after thought and is actuated with vengeance and filed solely to harras the defendant, whose action of leaving the plaintiff company has not gone well with the plaintiff. On merits, it has been stated that the defendant has not committed violation of Clause 7 of the said Agreement. The plaintiff cannot keep the defendant as bonded labour for life. The defendant had given due notice of one month before leaving the job and he stood relieved after execution of final clearance bill by the plaintiff. It has been further stated that although the plaintiff made Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 4 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 illegal and unauthorized deductions from the dues payable to the defendant, yet the defendant did not challenge the same and accepted the same as a gesture of goodwill. It has been further stated that plaintiff has not specified as to which project was left incomplete by the defendant before tendering his resignation. It has further not been specified as to which confidential information has been shared by the defendant with his present employer namely M/s Centum Learning Limited (hereinafter referred to as "CLL").
4. In replication, the plaintiff has denied the preliminary objections and the averments made by the defendant in the written statement and has reiterated the averments made by it in the plaint. It has been further stated that after getting armed with the knowledge and experience gained by the defendant from plaintiff company, he has divulged important secret information about the plaintiff's business to his present employer, i.e CLL. It has been further stated that final clearance was given to the defendant on account of settlement of accounts and resignation of the defendant was never accepted by the plaintiff. The nature of job of the defendant in the plaintiff company has been clarified by saying that his responsibility included administration as well as admission of students to IIPM and for loss of each student due to him, plaintiff has incurred a loss of approximately Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs).
5. With these pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 18.04.2011, following issues were framed in the matter:
Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 5 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
(i) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD.
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonpayment of appropriate court fees and if so, to what effect? OPD.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages, as claimed in the suit? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of prohibitory and permanent injunction in respect of relief claimed? OPP.
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in respect of relief claimed for? OPP.
(vi) Relief.
6. In order to discharge the onus put upon the parties, plaintiff company examined its DGM (Accounts) namely Shri Sudip Kumar Ganguly as PW1;
whereas defendant examined himself as DW1 in the matter.
7. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Shri Gulshan Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Shri P.D.P Deo, learned counsel for the defendant and perused the entire material on record. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
8. Issue No.(ii):Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non payment of appropriate court fees and if so, to what effect? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The defendant has not specified in the evidence as to how the plaintiff has not paid appropriate court fees in the matter. On the relief of damages, the plaintiff has paid appropriate court fees, whereas on the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, fixed Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 6 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 court fees of Rs.100/ has been filed, without specifying the actual valuation done to both the reliefs. According to this Court, this is an irregularity and does not in any manner makes the suit bad. It would have been better if the plaintiff had valued the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction separately, but the plaintiff cannot be nonsuited on the basis of this irregularity. The issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
9. Issue No.(i): Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD.
And Issue No.(iii):Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages, as claimed in the suit? OPP.
Since, both these issues are interconnected, the findings thereupon would be common, so both these issues are being decided simultaneously. The plaintiff has sought damages quantified as Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) against the defendant primarily on the following grounds:
(a) That the defendant was provided special training in business development at the cost of the plaintiff;
(b) In his capacity as "Associate" of the plaintiff, the defendant had exclusive access to the confidential/classified/proprietary information with regard to business of the plaintiff and he disclosed the said information to CLL, thereby causing huge financial loss to the plaintiff company;
(c) That the defendant tendered his resignation to the plaintiff on 18.03.2010, without completing some of the projects which were going on under his control;Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 7 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
(d) That the defendant committed violation of Clause 7 of the said Agreement, in leaving the employment of the plaintiff and joined its competitor company within one year of his resignation and;
(e) That the resignation of the defendant was never accepted by the plaintiff.
10. In order to succeed to prove its entitlement for having damages from the defendant, the plaintiff was required to establish all the aforesaid facts in the trial. On the other hand, the defendant with a view to discharge the onus of proving issue No.(i) had to disprove the aforesaid facts.
11. The learned counsel for the defendant has very vehemently argued that there is no cause of action in filing the present suit, as the dates when special training was imparted to the defendant by the plaintiff have not been mentioned and the subject on which the alleged special training was given has also not been specified. It has further not been specified as to how much money was incurred by the plaintiff in imparting such training to the defendant. There is no documentary evidence in the form of any certificate etc, issued by the plaintiff in this regard. It is further argued that the plaintiff has further not specified the confidential/classified/ proprietary information to which the defendant had exclusive access and no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record. It is further argued that the plaintiff has levelled bald and sweeping allegations against the defendant that before tendering his resignation on 18.03.2010, he had left some projects incomplete, but the details of such projects have no where been specified. No documentary evidence in this regard also has been placed on recrod. It is further argued that sweeping and conjestural allegations against the defendant have been Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 8 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 levelled with regard to he having parted with classified/confidential/proprietary information about the business of the plaintiff to the CLL, without specifying the nature of information parted with by him. Further, baseless allegations have been levelled against the defendant that on account of he having disclosed said confidential/ classified/proprietary information to CLL, the plaintiff has suffered loss @ Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs) per candidate, without filing any documentary evidence in this regard. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of final arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff had furnished document showing total number of students enrolled at its Hyderabad Centre from the year 200910 till the year 201213 as well as a computer print out with regard to the nature of business being done by CLL. The learned counsel for the defendant has taken strong exception to the taking on record of both these documents on the ground that the said documents were not produced by the plaintiff in evidence and the defendant did not get a chance to rebutt the same. Even the source from where the said documents have been obtained has not been disclosed by the plaintiff. It is further argued that the plaintiff is perturbed by the action of the defendant in leaving the job and with a view to pressurize him to come back, the present suit has been filed. There is nothing on record that for almost ten years during which the defendant remained in the employment of plaintiff, there was any lack of interest or dereliction of duty ever impugned against him by the plaintiff. It is further argued that defendant did not even complain of the illegal and arbitrary action of the plaintiff in deducting a sum of Rs.48,000/ and a sum of Rs.1,79,000/ from the final dues payable to him by the plaintiff at the time of granting final clearance. It has been further argued that there has not been any breach of any clause of the said Agreement by the defendant and the allegations of the plaintiff that on account of Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 9 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 defendant having parted with confidential/classified/proprietary information about the business of plaintiff to CLL, the plaintiff has suffered a loss of reputation, goodwill and huge financial loss(es) is presumptive and conjestural.
12. With a view to appreciate the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant, let us see as to what is the evidence recorded in the matter. PW1 in his crossexamination has categorically admitted that the name and particulars of the project left incomplete by the defendant at the time of tendering resignation has not been mentioned in the plaint. It has been further admitted by this witness that no document has been placed on record regarding giving of any specific information by the defendant to the CLL w.r.t admission data or placement of clients. This witness has further categorically admitted the Final Clearance Form (Mark X). It has been further admitted that the plaintiff did not communicate to the defendant about the nonacceptance of his resignation. This witness has further admitted that before effecting the deduction of Rs.1,79,000/ from the final payment, which was made to the defendant, no notice was given to him. It has been further admitted that even prior to deducting Rs.48,000/ towards the salary of the defendant, he was not given any notice. It has been further categorically admitted that no record with regard to any financial loss(es) having been suffered by the plaintiff on account of resignation of the defendant and his subsequent joining with CLL has been placed on record. The defendant in his evidence has categorically stated that he did not commit any breach of any of the clauses of the said Agreement, but no questions to him were put in his crossexamination on this aspect. Now, let us see as to what Clause 7 of the said Agreement says and as to whether the defendant has committed any breach thereof. Clause 7 of the said Agreement is reproduced as under:
Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 10 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
7. Planman Consulting would reserve the right to alter completely the Associate's Job description, and job location, for Planman Consulting's business purposes, whenever, howsoever required byPlanman Consulting.
The Associate would fulfil all duties related to the jobs assigned by Planman Consulting and/or by its clients relating to completing the assignments to the client's satisfaction. The Associate will not leave any client project completion without the written permission by Planman Consulting to do so. This is to prevent loss of professional reputation to Planman Consulting and also to prevent loss of time and effort of the client.
Because of the sensitive nature of Planman Consulting's work for its clients and efforts through which Planman Consulting attracts these clients, the Associate agrees that for during the period of the Associate's association with Planman Consulting and for a period of one year after termination of this association, no matter how such termination has occurred, the Associate will:
1. Not solicit any person or entity which is, or is actively being solicited by or on behalf of Planman Consulting's customer or client, at the time of such termination, wherever, such a prospective client might be located, with the objective of offering services of such kind as being present in Planman Consulting.
2. Not to accept any offer of association from any Planman Consulting's clients or from any of Planman Consulting's clients end user customers (in case of consultancy remuneration and placement organization) whether such association be on a part time, full time, independent contractor or any other basis without the written consent of Planman Consulting.Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 11 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
3. Not engage in any activity of Planman Consulting's or Planman Consulting's clients site, directly or indirectly for the purpose of independently obtaining contracts, or association in any position whose profile lies in any of the business area of Planman Consulting.
Note: If the Associate, during the association tenure deliberately misuses Planman Consulting's clients equipment, fund, assets, property or name, then it would be the policy of Planman Consulting to prosecute the Associate to the full extent of law. For any violation of the conditions under this clause, the Associate would be liable to pay damages and Planman Consulting is entitled to injunctive relief and accounting, in event of any such breach or of any such threatened breach. For violation of any one or more of the conditions under the above clauses, the Associate would be liable to immediately pay Rs.21,00,000/ (Twenty One Hundred Thousand Indian Rupees) as damages to the Planman Consulting in addition to any damages that Planman Consulting's clients may claim."
13. As regards the defendant having left the employment of plaintiff without completing any pending project, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the same and it can be safely concluded that no project was left unfinished by the defendant at the time of tendering his resignation. The plaintiff has emphasized the latter part of Clause 7 to the effect that the defendant had joined rival competitor in the business of education within one year of his leaving the plaintiff, without seeking permission in writing from the plaintiff in this regard and as such, there has been violation of this Clause. A categorical analysis of the later part of this Clause shows that the defendant was forbidden to solicit any customer or client or Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 12 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 prospective client of the plaintiff, after termination of his services with the plaintiff, no matter how such termination might have occured and this solicitation should have been in respect of the similar kind of services which are being offered by the plaintiff. This further forbids the defendant to accept any offer of association from any of the clients or end user customer of the plaintiff. The said association may be part time, full time, independent, contractual or any other basis. It further forbids the defendant to engage in any activity with the clients of the plaintiff directly, or indirectly for the purpose of independently obtaining contracts or association in any position whose profile lies in any of the business area of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not at all proved on record as to whether the defendant had solicited any of the customers or clients or prospective clients of the plaintiff in any manner. There is further no evidence that the defendant had ever accepted any offer of any association with any of the client(s) or end user customer(s) of the plaintiff. There is further no evidence on record that the defendant is engaged in activity of consulting client(s) of the plaintiff directly or indirectly for the purpose of independently obtaining any contract therefrom. The sole point which has been emphasized in the plaint as well as the evidence of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has joined rival competitor in the field of education and he has divulged trade secrets of plaintiff to it. The least the plaintiff could have done in the matter was to have examined witness(es) from CLL to atleast prove the nature of business of both the companies to be same or similar. The plaintiff has further not specified the kind of information, secret or otherwise, being divulged by the defendant to CLL and the plaintiff having suffered loss(es) on account of the same. The plaintiff has further not examined any of its clients or end user customers to prove any kind of violation of Clause 7 by the defendant. Therefore, this is a clear case of no evidence Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 13 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 against the defendant as far as violation of Clause 7 of the said Agreement by the defendant is concerned. I further find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the defendant that the two documents placed on record by the plaintiff at the time of final arguments cannot be looked into, as the same were not brought in evidence by the plaintiff, the source of the said documents has not been disclosed and the defendant was not given any opportunity to question the witness of plaintiff with regard to the said documents. Even otherwise, the documents showing the details of number of students at the Hyderabad Centre of the plaintiff does not prove anything, as it shows that till the time, i.e April' 2010 when the defendant was there in the employment of plaintiff as "Dean Administration/Academics" at IIPM, Hyderabad, the number of students were 287, whereas after he left the employment of the plaintiff, the number of students substantially increased in the year 2011 as well as in the year 2012, i.e consistently for two years and only in the year 2013 there has been a decline in the number of students at that particular station. These documents are rather in favour of defendant than in favour of plaintiff. What factors were responsible for decline of the number of students at the Hyderabad Centre of the plaintiff were never allowed to be questioned by the defendant. This also shows that plaintiff did not get a better successor of the defendant after him and that again goes on to show the motive of the plaintiff in filing the present suit to get him back with it.
14. As regards the actual loss of money suffered by the plaintiff after leaving the job of the defendant, it has been argued on behalf of plaintiff that the plaintiff is not required to prove the actual damages suffered by it, as the same stood quantified in the said Agreement itself. In this regard, reliance has been placed Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 14 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 upon the judgment reported as, "AIR 2003 SC 2629", titled as, "Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited V/s SAW Pipes Limited". I respectfully agree and bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, after considering the law laid down in a catena of judgments on the similar line that in every case of breach of contract the person aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove the actual loss or damage suffered by him before he can claim a decree, and the Court is competent to award reasonable compensation in case of breach, even if no actual damage is proved to have been suffered as a consequence of the breach of contract.
15. The marking words in the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment are "breach of contract". As has been clearly proved by the defendant that there has not been any breach of any of the conditions of Clause 7 of the said Agreement, the plaintiff cannot take shelter under the penalty clause wherein an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/ has been quantified as damages. Therefore, here the plaintiff was required to prove the actual damages by it on account of the action(s) of the defendant, which the plaintiff has miserably failed.
16. The argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff is mischievous that the resignation of the defendant was never accepted by the plaintiff. Does that mean that the defendant continues to be an employee of plaintiff till date? Was this state of affairs communicated to the defendant by the plaintiff ever? The witness of the plaintiff has categorically accepted that no such communication was ever made to the defendant. On the contrary, the defendant through the admitted documents of the plaintiff has proved that by issuing Final Clearance Form, i.e Mark X, the Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 15 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013 defendant stood relieved from the employment of plaintiff. This document not only specifies the resignation date, but also specifies the date of relieving of the defendant as well. It is not that the plaintiff has not applied its mind in accepting the resignation of the defendant. The plaintiff went into the deduction part from the final payment made to the defendant, which the defendant has objected to in this suit, but at that time no question in this regard was raised by him. Be that as it may, this document clearly establishes that the defendant stood relieved from the services of plaintiff on 18.04.2010.
17. After appreciating all the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as documents on record, it is abundantly clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff is quite vague in respect of the allegations levelled against the defendant by the plaintiff which are sweeping in nature and there is no justification for the said allegations. The defendant stood relieved from the services of plaintiff on 18.04.2010, whereas after three months thereof (i.e 02.07.2010), the plaintiff sent notice to him, claiming damages from him, which was clearly as a measure of harrasment of the defendant, as the plaintiff had the knowledge that defendant was working with CLL at Secunderabad and he would have to come to defend this suit to Delhi, which would cause huge harrasment to him. The plaintiff has further miserably failed to prove on record as to whether the CLL is engaged in similar education business of that of plaintiff and the defendant even had a chance to even use the knowledge attained by him during the course of his employment with the plaintiff for the gain of CLL. Therefore, the defendant has been able to establish that there was no cause of action with the plaintiff to have filed the present suit against the defendant and the plaintiff has miserably failed in proving Issue No.(iii) in his favour. Accordingly, issues No.
(i) and (iii) are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 16 of 18 CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
18. Issue No.(iv): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of prohibitory and permanent injunction in respect of relief claimed? OPP.
And Issue No.(v): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in respect of relief claimed for?
OPP.
Since, both these issues are interconnected and findings thereupon would be common, so both these issues are being decided simultaneously. The onus to prove both the aforesaid issues was upon the plaintiff. In the aforesaid issues, the plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against the defendant, thereby restraining him to part with directly or indirectly any business or activity or information of the plaintiff with any of its competitive company and has sought further mandatory injunction, thereby directing the defendant to return/handover to the plaintiff all such confidential/classified/proprietary information to the plaintiff. It has been held while returning findings on the other issues that the plaintiff has not specified the activity, information or any document of the plaintiff with the defendant, therefore, no such injunction can be granted in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Both these issues are also accordingly held in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
19. Relief:
In view of my specific findings on all the aforesaid issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action and meritless; same accordingly stands dismissed with costs, which is quantified as Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 17 of 18
CS No.191/2012: M/s Planman Consulting (India) Pvt.Ltd. V/s Shyam Sunder Pujala DOD:08.02.2013
20. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 08.02.2013 Addl. District JudgeIV/SouthWest
Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi
Suit for Damages, Prohibitory, Perm. & Mandatory Injunction "Dismissed with Cost" Page 18 of 18