Aricent Inc vs Sasken Communication … on 5 October, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 5TH DAY OF' OCTOBER, 240
BEFORE   3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE_1V-LBILLAP'   -

MISC. FIRST APPEAL No.820i_ 0:5? 25  

BETWEEN:

1. Aricent Inc,

A Company registered urrder  _ . _ 
the laws of the Cayman 'islands arid    C 
having its registered office at  ' * 
700, Hansen Way;   _  .  »
Palo Alto, CA 94304,'  :    
United       ' »

2. Aricent  3

_ .. vBangaJ§pre#56O 0'8E7.,  _____ M _

(Holdings) Lin1ited.."=- A 

No.18/1, ECO-zen; _ " ;j ._

Outer Ring Roar}, V' _ V

Panathnr Post', _

 APPELLANTS

 Sr} LK, Ka.su 1F§,Tf()If _ Sri.S . Basavaraj, Advs .)

" A  Sasken Communication
' C' " ~ Teclinologies... Limited,
  CO-»mpan&y registered under
_ ._ 'Tlfae 'COz:1;:anies Act,

__   ' ~I:_I_a'v*ing registered 8: Corporate
  j A Q'fi"1Ce---at 139/25,

12/



Ring road, Domlur,

Banga}ore--560 07 1.

Represented by its Company

Secretary and Compliance 
Officer Mr.R.Vitta1. ...RESPONDE.NT

(By Sri.George Joseph for DUA Associates)

=i==!=**=!=>k*

The Miscellaneous First Appeal'"u'11der'..gOrdei"./i3 it

1(R] r/W Sec.151 of c.p.c. against the:.oniersodatedi ::;e(V*;[igt2:iiio

passed on LA. No.1 in O.S. No.2:5'9_25/h2'Q    

XIII Additional City Civil Judge;"'c*Mayoha11~aijnit, 'Bangalore
(cc1~1»22), partly al1oWingi".Ai Nofiifl iiiea junder order 39 Rule
land 2 ofC.P.C. for ":11.  i      A

This Miscellaneous First_:'Appea}.._con1ing on for orders

this day,   
E 'VtJflD§eMENT

This. ', flapgjéeaiyi   against the order dated
its/"7./2'sio§..i'-passedxiziftlie XIII Additional City Civil Judge.
 iaa:ioisV;1$:a.25925/ 10, oI1I.A.No.i.

  impugned order, the trial Court has

"iii.-Tiifestrained"the appellants, their subsidiaries, affiliates etc..

soliciting, making offers or inducing the respondents

L/a

3
employees of the ALU Project to join the subsidiauy
companies, till disposal of the suit.

3. The learned counsel for the respondentypslnlonjiits

that the impugned order only restrains the

soliciting, making offers or inducing th’e”*re’_spondent’s”

employees of the ALU Project to join the

and it does not in any way ‘restrain “the .ern.plo_ye.eVs .5fron1,”

voluntarily joining the appellants,_._.fl’

4. The learned eo’u:l1’sel”– submits that

the impugrledlloider b:fie=ela.rii’:leVd@that way.

Accordiriglyl, order is clarified as follows;

While ‘va’ppella’nt–s;__their subsidiaries etc., are restrained

from V:s’01Vivcitirlg;«.,jrn.aking offers or inducing the respondents

Vemplloyeeis ALU Project to join the subsidiary

‘7»._.een1panies,;7i.,t yvill not come in the way of the employees

joining the appellants or the appellants taking the

employees who are willing to join the appellants voluntarily.

All contentians of the parties are left open. The .E1_I3E3ea1

is disposed of, accordingly. .4

L1″/JS