Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)

John Richard Brady And Ors. vs Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd. And ... on 6 July, 1987

In John Richard Brady and Ors. v. Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd and Anr., MANU/DE/0586/1987, this Court, invoking of general rule of equity and breach of confidence, had held that injunction can follow when use of such drawings amounts to the unauthorized use of the labour of the person who has prepared them and thus provides a 'spring-board' by which an infringer may obtain an unfair advantage over competitors. This Court had placed reliance on the judgment in Saltman Engineering Coy. Ld. Ferotec Ltd. and Monarch Engineering Coy.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Zee Telefilms Ltd. And Film And Shot And ... vs Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 27 March, 2003

In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2003 (27) PTC 457 (Bom) (DB), Bombay High Court held that in appropriate cases an interlocutory injunction may be issued restraining breach of confidentiality. It was further held that if the confidential information was allowed to be used against the plaintiff in competition with them by the defendants, it is not merely a matter of compensation in Pound, Shilling or Pence and, therefore, plaintiff would certainly be entitled to have injunction for breaching confidentiality.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 24 - A P Shah - Full Document

Shanghai Power Transmission ... vs Eci Engineering Construction Company ... on 13 July, 2017

All these hypotheses fall within the general rules of equity and breach of confidence propounded in the leading Saltman's case, Saltman Engineering Co. v. Cambell Engineering Co. (1948) RFC 203. The facts, as far as they matter here, were that Saltman OMP(I)(COMM) 189/2017 Page 9 Engineering owned confidential drawings concerning the design and construction of certain specialist tools. Through an agent they purported to contract with Campbell Engineering for the manufacture of some of these tools, and to that end they handed over the drawings. Cambell Engineering used these drawings for their own purposes. There was contention as to whether or not there had been a viable contract, and if not whether a breach of confidence could in law have occurred. In the Court of Chancery the Judge held that there was in fact no binding contract and thus no breach of confidence.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1