Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. ... vs Paras Mehra & Ors on 2 February, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. ... vs Paras Mehra & Ors on 2 February, 2026

1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") seeking holding the defendant no.7/respondent guilty of contempt of Court, for deliberately violating the orders dated 19.11.2018, 07.01.2020 and 06.12.2022, passed by this Court in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the applicant is addressed as plaintiff and the respondent is addressed as defendant no.7, as reflected in the memo of parties accompanying the suit.

3. In the suit, the plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction, restraining infringement of copyrights, breach of confidential information/trade secrets, breach of non-disclosures, breach of non-compete agreements, mandatory injunction, damages, delivery up, rendition of account CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 1 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 etc., primarily against defendant nos.1 to 6. Defendant no.7 which is a service provider has been arrayed for the purpose of compliance of any orders that may be passed by this Court in respect of the subject websites etc.

4. Plaintiff has filed the present application alleging deliberate non- compliance of the orders passed by this Court as referred to above. Plaintiff claims that on account of such deliberate non-compliance, the order directing transfer of required data as per the orders has resulted in destruction of the evidence and/or inaccessibility to the said evidence, which would have been otherwise available to the plaintiff in accordance with law, to substantiate its relief of permanent injunction amongst other reliefs as well.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff states that in para 4 of the order dated 29.05.2018, the defendant no.7 was directed to store and maintain the information on its 'cloud', of and through the website, www.hubco.in and in a hard disk/hard drive/USB or any other appropriate storage as on the date of the said order being served upon defendant no.7. Learned counsel further submitted that while disposing of the I.A. 7618/2018 seeking appointment of Local Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "LC"), this Court had directed that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant nos.1 to 4 will be given access to the hard disk/hard drive/USB etc., on which the content of the website www.hubco.in and the information obtained through the said website is maintained in the cloud storage of defendant no.7 and such information was to be available only to the Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that defendant no.7 holds significant data pertaining to both, the plaintiff and the defendants, and it is imperative that defendant nos.1 to 6 and defendant no.7 provide their respective data separately, because according to the plaintiff, this precaution is necessary as the plaintiff apprehended that defendant no.2 may potentially tamper with or misappropriate the data, thereby prejudicing CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 2 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

7. Learned counsel submits that in order to obviate the necessity of compliance of the Court's directions, the defendant no.7, on 04.10.2018, stated that there are legal issues qua the visibility of source code as the said codes are stored in the U.S.A. before the Court. On such statement, the plaintiff filed an application seeking change of status of defendant no.7 from 'proforma defendant' to 'contesting defendant'. Learned counsel submits that in case there were any difficulties or genuine reasons which prevented defendant no.7, it could have informed this Court any time immediately after 31.05.2018, however, malafidely, the defendant no.7 waited till 04.10.2018 to inform this Court that data could not be provided, as the code was stored in U.S.A. Learned counsel would have this Court believe that this was malafide of defendant no.7 to disobey the orders and hamper the adjudication of the suit. This submission, according to learned counsel, is also contrary to the blog dated 27.06.2016 of defendant no.7, which states that Amazon Web Services maintain servers in India, in Mumbai. If that is so, learned counsel submits that the data could have been easily preserved and provided by defendant no.7.

8. By referring to the charges levied by defendant no.7 for the services rendered both to the plaintiff as also the contesting defendants, learned counsel submits that defendant no.7 is under an obligation to provide all necessary data and information as directed by this Court. Learned counsel also submits that there is clear cut non-compliance of order dated 07.01.2020, wherein the statement of defendant no.7, that the data has been preserved in terms of the order, has been noted. He also submits that defendant no.7 had agreed to submit a copy of the source code preserved by it, as directed by this Court at a later stage. He submits that they were also under obligation, as per the said order, to place on record a report which would clarify as to whether CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 3 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 the source code submitted by the contesting defendants earlier was the same or different from the source code submitted by defendant no.7. This direction, as per the learned counsel, has remained non-complied till date. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid three orders i.e. 29.05.2018, 19.11.2018 and 07.01.2020 contemplated two different actions, (i) to preserve and retain the source code of defendant nos.1 to 4 with the defendant no.7 and; (ii) to compare the source provided by the contesting defendant nos.1 to 4 with the original source code available with the defendant no.7. He submits that defendant no.7 has wilfully not complied with the order directing it to retain the original source code of defendant no.1 to 4 available with defendant no.7. This had necessitated filing of the present application.

9. Learned counsel submits that on 20.01.2020, counsel for defendant no.7 had furnished the data to the IT expert as downloaded on 14.02.2019, who informed them subsequently that the said data is corrupted. Defendant no.7 filed an application seeking permission to assist the LC in accessing the data/re-download and preservation of the said data pertaining to defendant no.1 to 6. Vide order dated 06.12.2022, this Court directed the LC to check if the aforesaid data could be accessed and downloaded. However, in the Report dated 05.03.2023, the IT Expert observed that the source code pertaining to www.hubco.in was found updated on or after 17.12.2022 and that it was not possible to access the source code. Learned counsel submits that instead of furnishing the original source code and data by itself, the defendant no.7 collected the said data from defendant no.1 to 6 which was provided to the IT expert. He states that the authenticity of such data coming from an interested party was to be tested against the original source code/data to be provided by defendant no.7. Since defendant no.7 did not comply with providing the original source code/data, it has not only violated the aforesaid orders wilfully but also destroyed or obliterated any evidence which would have assisted the CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 4 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 plaintiff in proving its case against defendant nos.1 to 6. Thus, it is prayed that the action contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC be initiated against defendant no.7.

10. Per contra, Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.7 vehemently refuted the said submissions. While referring to the order dated 29.05.2018, which was modified, according to her, by the order dated 19.11.2018, and orders dated 07.01.2020, 06.03.2020, 06.12.2022 and 17.12.2022, she submits that there is no question of non-compliance or disobedience much less wilful disobedience by defendant no.7 of the orders passed by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff has conveniently referred to several portion of the orders however has presented convoluted facts. She submits that the order dated 29.05.2018 directed defendant no.7 to store the information on the cloud maintained by defendant no.7 through the website www.hubco.in in a hard disk/hard drive/USB or any other appropriate storage which was to be kept sealed and submitted to the Court. She states that by the order dated 19.11.2018, defendant no.2 was directed to inform defendant no.7 as to on which Amazon Cloud Server defendant no.2 has hosted their website and defendant no.7 would retain the entire data relating to the said website for preservation and production at a later stage. She states that the said directions were complied with and a statement to that effect was noted in para 2 of the order dated 07.01.2020. She also states that defendant no.7 was directed to submit a copy of the source code preserved by it to the LC which direction too was complied with by handing over the source code to the LC.

11. She submits that it was only in the meeting held in the month of March, 2020, that the LC had informed that the pen drive containing the source code/data furnished by the defendant no.7 appears to be corrupted or inaccessible. She further states that keeping in view the urgency, defendant CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 5 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 no.7 on its own filed an application bearing IA 3218/2020 seeking a direction that the LC be permitted to re-download the data. She states that notice was issued by this Court on 06.03.2020 however, on account of the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic, the matter stood adjourned from time to time. She states that vide order dated 06.12.2022, the defendant no.7 alongwith counsel/authorised representative was allowed to approach the same LC to see if the data pertaining to the defendants' website could be accessed and downloaded and in the event it could be, the said data was to be preserved by the LC in the interregnum. It was only when the LC, on 17.12.2022, made an attempt to access and download the data pertaining to the website of defendant nos.1 to 6 that it was revealed that defendant no.1 had changed the source code and the source code which was downloaded in the year 2018 is no more available.

12. It is in the above circumstances and facts that Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing for defendant no.7 submits that, the defendant no.7 as an entity has complied with all orders as is clear from the perusal of the aforesaid orders and there is no deliberate non-compliance or wilful disobedience on the part of defendant no.7.

13. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders referred to.

14. At the outset, it would be worthwhile to consider as to what would constitute disobedience, wilful or otherwise, in terms of provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad, (2009) 5 SCC 665 held that the power exercised is akin to the power of civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and that the disobedience complained of has to be proved "beyond any doubt". The power was required to be exercised with great caution and responsibility since the consequences of allowing an application under Order CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 6 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC would entail harsh consequences including imprisonment in civil prison and such consequences cannot be predicated on mere suspicion or surmises.

15. In Cross Fit LLC vs. Renjith Kunnumal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6261, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after having observed the difference of opinion in the judgments of the Supreme Court in UC Surendranath vs. Mambally's Bakery, (2019) 20 SCC 666 and Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209, held in para 28 that there has to be a strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience for punitive action to follow under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. There cannot be any presumption or conjecture of disobedience and merely because there is a strong suspicion of disobedience, may not always necessarily entail consequences enumerated in Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.

16. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant no.7 does not appear to have violated or disobeyed various orders referred to above by this Court. Perusal of the order dated 29.05.2018 indicates that defendant no.7 was directed to store the information of the website www.hubco.in which was stored on the cloud maintained by defendant no.7, in a hard disk/hard drive/USB or any other appropriate storage device as available on the date of the order being served upon defendant no.7. The said storage was to be kept sealed by defendant no.7 to be furnished to the Court. Subsequently, on 19.11.2018, on the asking of the plaintiff that defendant no.7 be directed to submit the source code so as to maintain the integrity of the said source code, the Court had directed defendant no.2 to inform defendant no.7 as to on which Amazon Cloud Server their website is hosted. Defendant no.7 was directed to retain the entire data pertaining to the said website for preservation and production at a later date. Simultaneously, plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 6 CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 7 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

17. Order dated 07.01.2020 records that the Report of the LC was already on record. It also records that defendant no.7 has preserved the data in terms of order dated 19.11.2018. On a request of the plaintiff, the Court directed defendant no.7 to submit a copy of the source code preserved by the LC so as to compare the source code in question and submit a report. Pursuant thereto, defendant no.7 had furnished the source code to the LC in a pen drive.

18. In the month of March, 2022, upon testing the said pen drive, the LC found the pen drive to be corrupted and the data inaccessible. The moment this information was furnished to defendant no.7, it immediately filed an I.A 3218/2020 seeking permission for defendant no.7 to assist the LC in accessing and downloading the data of the defendant's website www.hubco.in. The said application was considered in the order dated 06.12.2022 wherein it was noted that the counsel for plaintiff and contesting defendants are not opposing the said prayer and certain directions were passed. It would be apposite to extract para 6 of the order dated 06.12.2022 containing such directions:

"6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the following directions are passed:

I. The defendant no.7 along with counsels/authorized representatives of the parties shall approach the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, Mr. Sarsij Kumar, (Mobile No.9650006723) Director (IT), High Court of Delhi, to see if the data pertaining to the defendants' website (link unavailable), from the date of filing of the suit till 14th February, 2019, can be accessed and downloaded.

II. In the event the data is downloaded and accessed, the same shall be preserved by the Local Commissioner till the adjudication of the suit.

III. In terms of the order dated 7th January, 2020, the Local Commissioner shall submit a Report within eight weeks from today. IV. The Local Commissioner shall be paid a further fee of Rs.30,000/-, to be borne equally between the plaintiff and defendants."

CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 8 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 It appears that on 17.12.2022, while complying with the directions in order dated 06.12.2022, the LC observed that defendant no.1 had changed the source code and as such, the source code available as on 2018 is not available/accessible any more.

19. It is this revelation of inaccessibility of the source code furnished by defendant no.7 that the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC appears to have been instituted.

20. As is clear from the facts narrated and observations made in the aforesaid orders, it appears to this Court that defendant no.7 has substantially complied with the orders dated 29.05.2018 and 19.11.2018 as also subsequent orders. Moreover, defendant no.7 is only an intermediary which has no personal role in the dispute between plaintiff and contesting defendant nos.1 to 6.

21. This Court is unable to comprehend as to why defendant no.7 would not furnish the requisite information as directed by this Court in the aforenoted orders. It appears to be a fortuitous circumstance and unfortunate that the data which was stored by the defendant no.7, in compliance with the orders of this Court in a pen drive, got corrupted. It is not alleged by the plaintiff that the pen drive or the data was deliberately or wilfully corrupted by defendant no.7. Moreover, in case it is correct that on 17.12.2022, the LC had found that defendant no.1 had changed the source code and as such, the original source code is not accessible or not available, that by itself cannot be hoisted upon defendant no.7 to contend that defendant no.7 is guilty of non- compliance or disobedience of the orders of this Court in terms of provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.

22. This Court only needs to ascertain substantial compliance and satisfy its conscience as to whether any disobedience has been evidenced or CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 9 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36 demonstrated clearly, which does not leave any room for a doubt. That alone, in the considered opinion of this Court, may qualify for disobedience under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Ordinarily, this aspect has to be examined on the facts arising in each case. It is possible that in some cases, disobedience may not be wilful but still be a disobedience which may entail consequences under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Since such a view or opinion is not called for in the present factual matrix, this Court refrains from rendering any firm opinion in that context.

23. In view of the aforesaid, the application being bereft of merits, is dismissed. However, without any orders as to costs.

CS(COMM) 914/2018 and I.A. 20640/2023

24. List on 07.05.2026.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 2, 2026 Sumit/rl CS(COMM) 914/2018 Page 10 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:34:36

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders