Delhi High Court - Orders
Kochhar And Co vs Santanu Roy on 12 October, 2021
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~OS-17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 516/2021 & I.As. 13477-13483/2021
KOCHHAR AND CO. ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advs. with
Mr.Rohit Kochhar.
Versus
SANTANU ROY ..... Defendant
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 12.10.2021 I.A. 13478/2021 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
I.A. 13479/2021 Court fees be paid within two weeks.
Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 13480/2021 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
I.A. 13481/2021(for constituting confidentiality club) Issue notice to the defendant by speed post and e-mail, returnable for 16.12.2021.
I.A. 13482-483/2021 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. CS(COMM) 516/2021 Let the plaint be registered as suit.
Issue summons to the defendant by speed post and e-mail, returnable for 16.12.2021.
I.A. 13477/2021(u/O 39 R1 & 2 CPC)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
"a. pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant his agents, associates, relatives, nominees, employees or any other person acting for or at the behest of the Defendant, from sharing, disclosing, publishing, circulating or disseminating in any manner or mode (directly or indirectly) any communication of whatsoever nature including any document attached to any e- mail received at, or copied to, or addressed to, or written using the e-mail id [email protected] or sharing, disclosing, publishing, circulating or disseminating in any manner or mode the settlement agreements or any document or correspondence whatsoever relating to CMA CGM, obtained from the bereaved families of the fishermen at Kakdwip, West Bengal or their advocates in connection with such settlement agreements executed between CMA CGM and the affected parties during the pendency of the suit; and/or b. pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from sending any communications directly or indirectly through emails, messages, phone calls, letters or establishing any contact, in any manner, with CMA CGM or any other client of Plaintiff firm during the pendency of the suit; and/or c. pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from communicating or establishing any contact (directly or indirectly with the members of the deceased fishermen's families at Kakdwip, West Bengal during the pendency of the suit to extort monies from them or on any other pretext); and/or d. pass an order of ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining him, his servants, his affiliates, relatives, employees and/or any other third party with whom the Defendant may have shared confidential and privileged documents and/or communications relating to the CMA CGM matter which are in possession of the Defendant by virtue of his Plaintiff firm during that period, from using, imparting, disseminating in any form, disclosing to any third party, copymg, storing or publishing on any medium whatsoever (whether physical, virtual or electronic); and/or e. pass ex-parte ad interim injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant directing the Defendant to return to the Plaintiffs all the confidential and privileged communications and/or documents in his possession or deposit with this Hon'ble Court all the IT and non-IT Assets (including the desktop computer, laptop, USB drives, external hard drives, electronic storage media, cloud computing storage spaces, print outs etc.) wherein the confidential and privileged documents and/or communications or copies thereof have been retained or stored, in any form or manner, by the Defendant or his agents, associates, relatives, nominees, employees or any other person acting for or at the behest of the Defendant with whom the Defendant may have shared the such confidential and privileged documents and/or communications; and/or f. pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from issuing any disparaging, harmful or defamatory statements against the Plaintiff firm, or any of its members working therein, in any form or medium whatsoever during the pendency of the suit;"
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a law firm and in April, 2021, it was retained by a company-CMA CGM to provide comprehensive legal support relating to an unfortunate accident off the coast of Mangalore, Karnataka involving a collusion between a container owned by CMA CGM and fishing boat owned by an Indian citizen. The said collusion resulted in demise of twelve fishermen, six of whom were residents of Tamil Nadu and six were from West Bengal.
3. The plaintiff was retained to provide comprehensive legal support including the responsibility of preparation and execution of settlement agreements between CMA CGM and the bereaved families. It is the case of the plaintiff that considering the fact that the deceased fishermen were not well off and the sole bread winners of their respective families, on a compassionate ground, CMA CGM has paid Rs.75 lacs each as compensation to the family of each of the deceased fishermen.
4. Considering the enormity of the task, the plaintiff firm engaged the defendant as an advocate to act on its behalf and entrusted the defendant the responsibility of (i) travelling to Kakdwip, West Bengal to meet the adversely affected bereaved families from West Bengal, and given his proficiency in Bengali, provide assurance to the affected parties that the CMA CGM group and the Plaintiff firm are there to support them; (ii) explaining the contents of the settlement agreements (and other ancillary deeds/documents) to the bereaved family members/legal heirs in vernacular Bengali language; and (iii) execute the settlement agreements on behalf of CMA CGM, for which purpose requisite authorisation was provided to the Defendant. The said defendant was retained by the plaintiff firm and had no privity of contract with CMA CGM firm.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that later on, the plaintiff was shocked to learn from some of the counsels representing the victims that the defendant had fraudulently cheated and extorted a sum of Rs.10 lacs from one of the bereaved families on the false pretext that the bereaved family was liable to pay a tax deduction.
6. Plaintiff is also said to have requested Justice (Retd.) Mr.Deepak Verma, former Judge of the Supreme Court to conduct an independent enquiry but the defendant has refused to cooperate. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is presently defaming and sharing with third parties highly confidential information and e-mails which contain legal advice rendered by the plaintiff firm and communication exchanged between the plaintiff and the clients. Further, the defendant is said to be demanding fee from CMA CGM on account of the alleged services provided by him and has threatened to revoke / rescind the settlement agreements executed by him for and on behalf of CMA CGM with the bereaved families.
7. The plaintiff is ready to pay the full balance fee of the defendant of Rs.4 lacs. Hence, the present suit.
8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant is parting with confidential information which are confidential communications between the plaintiff and its client and/or between the plaintiff and the defendant which are duly protected. He further pleads that the defendant is threatening to defame against the plaintiff and the family of the deceased persons.
9. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. An interim order is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of prayer
(a), (b), (c) and (d) above.
10. The defendant is also restrained from making defamatory comments against the plaintiff law firm or any member thereof.
11. Issue notice to the defendant by speed post and email, returnable for 16.12.2021.
JAYANT NATH, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2021/st