Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Sundar, J.) This common order will now dispose of the captioned two 'Original Side Appeals' ['OSAs' in plural and 'OSA' in singular for the sake of brevity] and captioned two 'Civil Miscellaneous Petitions' ['CMPs' in plural and 'CMP' in singular for the sake of brevity] thereat.

2. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that a suit in C.S.No.633 of 2015 was instituted in the Commercial Division of this Court against three individuals arraying the three individuals as Defendants 1 to 3 [D1, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A (CAD) Nos.92 and 93 of 2023 D2 and D3 for the sake of convenience]; that two plaintiffs are, a company incorporated in India and an entity in United Kingdom; that plaintiffs are in the business of manufacturing special type of abrasive resistant submersible slurry pumps; that it is the case of the plaintiffs that the slurry pumps are products of skilled engineering; that D1 sometime in October 2006 applied for a job in the first plaintiff Company [to be noted, first plaintiff is the Company incorporated in India]; that D1 was appointed; that it is the case of the plaintiff that D1 even while in service of the first plaintiff had registered a Limited Liability Partnership in the name and style 'FLOWEZYY' along with D2 and D3; that 'FLOWEZYY' shall be referred to as 'said LLP' for convenience (to be noted, 'LLP' denotes 'Limited Liability Partnership'); that said LLP started manufacturing and selling spares for the slurry pumps manufactured by plaintiffs; that this led to the aforementioned suit in C.S.No.633 of 2015; that in the suit, damages towards loss of business, loss of reputation and breach of confidentiality in a sum of little over Rs. 1.64 Crores (Rs.1,64,01,517 to be precise), permanent injunctions restraining the defendants, their men, agents, employees from using the domain name 'Goodwin' with or without any suffixes or prefixes, restraining the defendants from claiming to be the representatives of the plaintiffs and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A (CAD) Nos.92 and 93 of 2023 restraining the defendants from dealing with the clients and customers of the plaintiffs was sought; that D1 and D2 entered appearance; that D1 filed a written statement and D2 filed a adoption memo adopting the written statement of D1; that D3 remained ex parte; that at this stage, before framing of issues, plaintiffs resorted to Order XIII-A of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908)' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of brevity] and sought summary judgment; that the summary judgment application is A.No.3814 of 2022; that summary judgment as regards prayer paragraphs (b) to (e) were decreed; that it is to be noted that paragraphs (b) to (d) constitute the three injunctions set out in the earlier part of this narrative and paragraph (e) is for costs; that consequent to such an order dated 10.01.2023 in the Order XIII-A summary judgment application, a decree in the suit in terms of plaint prayers (b) to