Delhi District Court
M/S. Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd vs (1.) M/S. Arsnel Steel Silos on 28 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRANT VAID:
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/SOUTH EAST:
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
New CS No. 53051/16
M/s. Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Through its AR Sh. Yogesh Kumar
Office at211, 2nd floor, Okhla Industrial Estate,
PhaseIII, New Delhi110020. .......... Plaintiff
Versus
(1.) M/s. Arsnel Steel Silos
Office atA16, Khasra No.23/4,
Gali no.2, Phase10, Shiv Vihar,
Delhi110094.
(2.) Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma
Office atA16, Khasra No.23/4,
Gali no.2, Phase10, Shiv Vihar,
Delhi110094.
(3.) Smt. Poonam Devi
W/o Vipin Kumar Sharma
Office atA16, Khasra No.23/4,
Gali no.2, Phase10, Shiv Vihar,
Delhi110094. ............. Defendants
Date of Institution : 24.12.2016
Date of judgment : 28.04.2018
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY &
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10
J U D G M E N T:
1.Brief facts of plaintiff's case are that plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and deals in tanks and silos since 2004. Defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship concern and defendant no. 3 is the proprietor of defendant no. 1 concern whereas the defendant no. 2 is the main beneficiary of the defendant no. 1. It is averred that on 03.06.2010, defendant no. 2 joined the plaintiff's company as a purchase/production coordinator through appointment letter dated 03.06.2016 wherein plaintiff company imposed 14 conditions in appointment letter which was accepted and confirmed by the defendants through confirmation letter dated 03.09.2010. It is averred that during the service period, the defendants used to meet plaintiff's clients/customers and collected the data and other information and had stolen the copy of site, copy of pictures of tanks and silos, copy of designs, copy of client's list and other properties.
2. It is averred that defendant no. 2 was fired from the job on 16.12.2014 from the plaintiff's company and in collusion with each other, defendants started running a similar business CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10 under the name and style of M/s. Arsnel Steel Silos. It is averred that defendant no. 2 used to steal relevant confidential data and information of the plaintiff company and deliberately left the company and opened the defendant no. 1 firm in the name of his wife i.e. defendant no.3. It is averred that defendant no. 2 has developed a website www.arsenalsteelsilos.com in the name of defendant no. 1 on 19.05.2015 and all the stolen pictures and designs from the plaintiff's site were pasted thereupon. Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 20.10.2016 to the defendants directing them to return the data. However, defendants instead of complying with the notice, sent a false and evasive reply dated 18.11.2016. Hence, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff praying for the following relief:
(i) a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the logo, which is similar/identical to the logo of the plaintiff company, being used by the defendants illegally and unlawfully, as null and void,
(ii) a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff thereby directing the defendants to return/handover all the relevant materials such as removing the pictures from the site and close the site which the defendants stolen and illegally possessed, to the plaintiff,
(iii) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff thereby permanently restraining the defendants from using and operating the website i.e. arsnelsteelssilos.com wherein they have put the CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10 ingredients of the plaintiff company , which depicts the pictures and designs of the plaintiff, stolen by the defendants,
3. In written statement, defendants raised the preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable and plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the present suit. On merits, defendants specifically denied the averments made in the plaint.
4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein he denied the averments made in the written statement and reasserted averments made in the plaint.
5. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor : i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration? OPP.
ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction? OPP.
iii.Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction? OPP.
iv.Relief.
6. In plaintiff's evidence, Sh. Yogesh Kumar, AR of plaintiff was examined as sole witness i.e. PW1. He reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1 and proved the following documents:
i) Copy of authority letter as Ex. PW1/A.
ii) photographs as Ex. PW1/B.
iii) Offer Letter as Ex. PW1/C.
CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10
iv) Appointment letter as Ex. PW1/D.
v) Confirmation letter as Ex. PW1/E.
vi) Relieving letter as Ex. PW1/F.
vii) Legal notice as Ex. PW1/G.
viii) Speed post/email notice and reply as
Ex. PW1/H (colly).
7. In his defence, defendant no. 2 Vipin Kumar Sharma was examined as 'DW2' and proved his affidavit of evidence Ex. DW2/A. He deposed on lines of written statement.
8. I have heard the arguments and considered the material on record.
9. My issue wise findings are as follows: Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration (thereby declaring the logo, which is similar/identical to the logo of the plaintiff company, being used by the defendants illegally and unlawfully, as null and void)?
10. Plaintiff has also prayed for declaring the logo used by the defendant no.1 as null and void. Firstly, no description of the logo has been given by the plaintiff for its identification by the Court. Hence it is not possible to identify or compare the logos used by the plaintiff and defendants. CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10
Secondly, there is no averment or evidence as to the creation or its ownership or exclusive use of impugned logo by the plaintiff.
In these circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the evidentiary burden case upon it. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction (thereby directing the defendants to return/handover all the relevant materials such as removing the pictures from the site and close the site which the defendants stolen and illegally possessed, to the plaintiff)?
11. Plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no.1 stole the electronic data pertaining to clients and other trade secrets. The defendant no.1 has categorically and consistently denied such allegation of data theft. Needless to say that the burden of proving these allegations rests upon the plaintiff. However, apart from making vague and bald allegations, no documentary, ocular or circumstantial evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff which CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10 could establish the factum of data theft by the defendant no.1. In fact PW1, who is the sole witness examined by plaintiff, admitted that he had not seen the plaintiff committing theft of the secret data. No forensic evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that the secret data kept electronically was stolen or copied by the defendant or any other person.
12. Further, PW1 admitted that the plaintiff has filed similar cases against other former employees also. This circumstance may not be relevant otherwise but considering the vague and bald averments in the complaint, it assumes significance and indicates the conduct of the plaintiff. No complaint to police, Magistrate or any other authority was made by the plaintiff regarding the data theft which is an offence punishable under the criminal law. Why? There is no answer or explanation on record. Further, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants misused the data and approached the plaintiff's clients causing him business loss. These allegations have been vehemently refuted by the defendants counsel. It goes without CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10 saying that the onus of proving these allegations lies on the plaintiff. Firstly, the details of clients who were approached have not been disclosed in the plaint. Secondly, plaintiff has brought no evidence on record to establish that the defendants had approached plaintiff's clients in any manner by using the alleged stolen data. Be that as it may. Merely by showing that the erstwhile plaintiff's clients were now trading with defendants is not sufficient to establish (i) data theft by defendant no. 1 or (ii) defendant was approaching plaintiff's clients upon such alleged stolen data. The connection between alleged data theft and misuse of such secret information by defendant no.1 has to be established by plaintiff by means of positive evidence. Data theft and its misuse cannot be proved on the basis of conjecture or surmises. Plaintiff is under obligation of law to establish the same on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In my opinion based on material on record, plaintiff has miserably failed to establish the data theft or the misuse of any secret information. Naturally, the business loss, if any, caused to the plaintiff cannot be attributable to data theft.
In light of above discussions, this issue is decided CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10 against the plaintiff.
Issue no.3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction (thereby permanently restraining the defendants from using and operating the website i.e. arsnelsteelssilos.com wherein they have put the ingredients of the plaintiff company , which depicts the pictures and designs of the plaintiff, stolen by the defendants)?
13. There is neither any averment nor any evidence adduced as to the creation of such designs, its ownership or exclusive use by the plaintiff. Further, during arguments, plaintiff's counsel conceded that the said designs were not registered with the Registrar of Designs. Further, PW1 admitted in cross examination that the designs in question are easily available on the internet to anyone. Apparently, plaintiff has no apparent proprietory right whatsoever over the designs used by the defendants. In other words, there is no obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence this relief of permanent injunction is not available to the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10 defendants.
14. In light of the findings given in the issues no.1, 2 & 3, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
15. Respective costs of the suit to borne by the parties.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (Vikrant Vaid)
on 28.04.2018 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/South East
Saket Courts/New Delhi
CS No. 53051/16 M/s Rostfrei Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Arsnel Steel Silos & Ors. Page 10 of 10