Madras High Court
Citec Engineering India Private ... vs Mr.G.Sathish Babu on 26 June, 2019
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.06.2019
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.S.No.596 of 2016
and O.A.Nos.729 to732 of 2016
and A.Nos.4258 to 4260 of 2016
Citec Engineering India Private Limited
a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office at
Hermes Atrium, Plot No.57, Sector - 11,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400 614
and branch office at SKCL Central
Square - II, Fourth Floor, Thiru-Vi-ka
Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
Represented by Mr.Sampath Kumar (authorized signatory)
...Plaintiff
Versus
1.Mr.G.Sathish Babu
2.M.Maheshwaran
3.K.Muthukumar
4.Athiappan.T
5.Arunachalam Muthukumar
6.Shivakumar.T
7.PE - Aristi Projects and Engineering
Private Limited (formerly known as
Aristi Projects and Engineering Private Ltd.),
a company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office at Guna
Complex, Annex - I, 6th Floor,
D.No.443 & 445, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.
...Defendants
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
This suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules, 1956 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 r/w Section 61 & 62 of the Copyrights Act for the following
reliefs:
(a) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, agent, representative or any person action on their behalf of
them from divulging, or disseminating the confidential information of
the plaintiff as defined in Schedule A and as provided by the
defendants pursuant to Prayer (f) to third parties or otherwise
exploiting the same for their own benefit;
(b) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, servants, contractors, or anybody claiming under them from
directly or indirectly soliciting, any of the customers of the plaintiff
set out in plaint document No.24;
(c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants by
themselves, their directors, partners, men, servants, agents,
associates, officers, representatives, franchisees, licensees and/or all
other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner infringing
and/or enabling others to infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the
computer database the documents of which are described in
Schedule A and in each of the documents individually, specifically by
reproducing, issuing copies of, communicating to the public, selling
or public, selling or offering for sale, adaption, or infringing by any
other means whatsoever, the plaintiff's copyrighted work;
(d) declaration declaring that defendant No.1, defendant No.2,
defendant No.3, defendant No.4, defendant No.5 and defendant
No.6 have breached the terms of their appointment letters being
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
Ref.No.Citec\HR\BF\C\1004 dated 18.02.2008, Ref.No.
Citec\HR\BF\C\0018 dated 13.10.2008, dated 22.12.2005,
Ref.No.Citec\HR\MM\AL\C\10\0003 dated 24.09.2010,
Ref.No.Citec\HR\AL\T\14\1041 dated 23.12.2014 and
Ref.No.Citec\HR\MM\AL\C\10\1001 dated 07.03.2011 respectively
with the plaintiff;
(e) permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1,
defendant No.2, defendant No.3, defendant No.4, defendant No.5
and defendant No.6 from acting in continuing breach of Clause 5(c)
of their appointment letters being Ref.No.Citec\HR\BF\C\1004 dated
18.02.2008, Ref.No.Citec\HR\BF\C\0018 dated 13.10.2008, dated
22.12.2005, Ref.No.Citec\HR\MM\AL\C\10\0003 dated 24.09.2010,
Ref.No.Citec\HR\AL\T\14\1041 dated 23.12.2014 and
Ref.No.Citec\HR\MM\AL\C\10\1001 dated 07.03.2011 respectively
with the plaintiff;
(f) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to disclose in
an affidavit the confidential information/data that are in the
possession in the plaintiff and to return all such confidential
information/data that are in possession of the defendants to the
plaintiff;
(g) direct that the costs of the suit be paid by the defendants
to the plaintiff.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag
For Defendants : No Appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.,
mrr
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff seeks the permission of this Court to withdraw the suit and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
2. In view of the submission coupled with an endorsement made by the plaintiff's counsel, this Civil Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Applications are closed.
26.06.2019 mrr Index : Yes/No C.S.No.596 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in 5 http://www.judis.nic.in