Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Parraj Automobiles Private Limited vs Mr. Samiran Sinha on 1 December, 2025
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Supratim Bhattacharya
1st December,
2025
(AK)
10
F.M.A.T 460 of 2025
IA No: CAN 1 of 2025
Parraj Automobiles Private Limited
Vs.
Mr. Samiran Sinha
Mr. Avishek Guha
Ms. Sonal Agarwal
Mr. V. Verma
...for the appellant.
1. The employer/plaintiff has filed the present appeal
against an order of refusal of ad interim injunction
in a suit couched as one for specific performance of
contract as well as ancillary reliefs of injunction,
binding the respondents/employee to the
employment contract between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the learned Trial Judge, although primarily with the plaintiff, refused to grant ad interim injunction principally on the ground that damages would furnish adequate alternative remedy and the injury, if any, suffered by the plaintiff can be compensated by monetary relief.
3. Learned counsel points out to the relevant clauses of the appointment letter, particularly Clauses 11, 12, 15 and 15.3, and argues that although to some extent it might be that compensation would be an 2 adequate remedy for premature resignation by the employee, insofar as the other clauses, pertaining to non-competition and non-solicitation, are concerned, damages would not furnish an adequate remedy.
4. A bare perusal of the employment contract shows that Clause 11 thereof prevents the employee, in the event of departure from the services of the appellant-Company, from entering into the service of a Company studying, manufacturing or selling products/services that are identical or similar to those that are studied, manufactured or sold by the appellant-Company and from taking a direct and indirect interest in any form whatsoever, including in particular through consultancy work or acquisition of share holding, in an activity of the type, be it in existence or in the process of creation.
5. Clause 12, on the other hand, restrains an employee of the appellant-Company from employing or attempting to employ or assist anyone else to employ any person who is in the employment of the appellant-Company.
6. Clause 15 stipulates that the employee has to give a prior notice of 30 days prior for resignation or termination of the service.
7. In the present case, a prima facie proof of attempts on the part of the respondent to violate such 3 clauses has been made out as per the documents which have been annexed before us as well as in the injunction application before the trial court, which indicate that an e-mail was sent by the respondent to the appellant indicating the latter's resignation from the Company without giving such prior notice.
8. Secondly, a letter (the veracity of which, of course, can only be gone into at a later stage of the proceeding) from one of the alleged employees of the appellant-Company has been produced which shows that the respondent is apparently trying to poach the said other employee from the appellant- Company.
9. Thus, we are of the prima facie opinion that damages would not provide a complete and comprehensive remedy in view of the conspectus of the suit for the plaintiff in terms of the employment contract.
10. Although, for the limited purpose of Clause 15.3, damages might be considered to be an adequate remedy, such point is also arguable.
11. However, as far as the infraction of the other clauses are concerned, damages does not appear to be quantifiable or an adequate alternative remedy prima facie.
4
12. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted to be heard on the above questions and on the other grounds taken in the memorandum of the appeal.
13. The appellant shall serve a copy of CAN 1 of 2025 as well as the copy of the memorandum of appeal on the respondent, indicating that the application shall be listed next on December 15, 2025.
14. The appellant shall file an affidavit-of-service to that effect on the returnable date.
15. The respondent shall remain restrained by an order of injunction from continuing employment with or rendering services to any Company or concern engaged in competing business with the plaintiff and/or from joining such a Company within two years from the date of cessation of employment with the plaintiff/appellant and/or from soliciting or inducing any employee of the plaintiff/appellant to leave his/her service for the said period and/or till disposal of the application, whichever is earlier.
16. The respondent shall also remain restrained from using or disclosing any confidential information or trade secrets belonging to the appellant-Company to third parties till disposal of the application.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)