Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

64 The Applicant was repeatedly certified by the ISO as having a stringent information technology system in place.

65 In any event, Defendant No.1 has no knowledge on how to operate servers or to draw information from servers Defendant No.1 is a businessman, not an information technology specialist.

66 It is false to state that the Defendant No.1 had access and control of the Applicants entire intellectual property, including the software, applications and source code. To begin with, for the reasons stated above, there is no intellectual property held by the Applicant as a BPO. Had the Applicant had any IP to its credit, the same would have been disclosed in the Balance Sheet as required by the Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

67 All software applications such as Microsoft Windows Operating System, and Tally, are licensed to the Applicant and the Applicant has limited user licenses. The makers of the software never provide licensees access to any source code. It is unlikely that the Applicant itself has access to any source codetherefore claiming that Defendant No.1 would have access to something the Applicant itself has no access to is simply absurd and contrary to all practices followed in the BPO industry.

68 It is false to state that Defendant No.1 had access and knowledge of the customers sensitive information such as credit and financial details. Any basic customer information that Defendant No.1 had about the Applicants customer was in the course of his employment. Further, customers use multiple BPOs to provide the same services, and the Applicant is seeking to fog the issue by making false statements about confidentiality and intellectual property.