Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/497/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 497 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 71 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5250 of 2008
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 497 of 2008
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 499 of 2008
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 72 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5260 of 2008
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 499 of 2008
=========================================
BALAJI
INDUSTRIES PRODUCTS LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
AIA
ENGINEERING PVT LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
ABHAY JAIN with MR. TEJAS TRIVEDI for MR YJ TRIVEDI for
Appellants/Applicants
MR SANJAY A MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S.SHAH
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S.SHAH)
These
appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against
the common judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2008 of
the learned Single Judge, dismissing the petitions, by which the
appellants herein had challenged the order dated 10th
December, 2007 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, rejecting
Applications below Exh. 124 and 126 filed by the applicants,
purporting to be applications under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code, in Civil Suit No. 3317 of 2001.
2. Respondent
No.1 has instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 3317 of 2001 before the
City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, praying for the following reliefs:-
?SA) The Hon’ble
Court be pleased to declare that the defendants Nos.1 & 3 have no
right of any nature whatsoever to use or disclose information like
secret processes of manufacturing such as chemical formulae, designs,
drawing, special methods of treatment and other information of high
degree of confidentiality and such other trade secrets acquired by
them while in employment with the plaintiff company to either the
second defendant or any other person and/or persons and be further
pleased to restrain them by a permanent injunction from disclosing or
using the aforesaid information in any manner whatsoever.
B) The Hon’ble Court
be pleased to declare that the defendants and in particular,
defendant No.2 have no right of any nature whatsoever to
manufacture, offer for sale or supply the following
products/services.
Griding
media for zinc ore grinding application of a wear rate of 780
gms./tonne or lower.
Duocast
rollers (inserted rolls used in Vertical Grinding Mills).
Airport
ring assembly.
Ball
sorting machine and associated services,
and
be further pleased to restrain the defendants, and in particular the
defendant No.2 by a permanent injunction from manufacturing,
offering for sale or supplying the aforesaid products/services.??
3.
The appellant herein filed the above numbered applications and
contended that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, and
it was also contended that the trial Court had no territorial
jurisdiction to try the suit against the present appellant ?
defendant No.2 in the suit, because defendant No.2 is carrying on its
business in the State of Rajasthan. The trial Court however,
dismissed the applications after holding that the plaint does
disclose a cause of action, and that the trial court had jurisdiction
to try the suit against defendant No.2 also.
4. The
learned Single Judge has confirmed the above findings of the trial
court and held as under:-
?S…..
The crux of the matter is that
according to the plaintiff, it was in possession of certain highly
technically refined process for manufacturing certain engineering
products. Such acquisition was made by the plaintiff through
acquiring the knowhow as well as by research and refinement in
developing such products. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 by misusing their
access to sensitive and secret material of the plaintiff company
passed on the same to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 on the basis
of such unauthorizedly acquired knowhow has been attempting to
produce certain goods similar to that the plaintiff.??
The learned Single
Judge has also held in paragraph 17 as under:-
?S17. Coming to the
facts of the present case, I find that the foundation of the
plaintiff’s case against defendant No.2 is that defendant No.2 in
connivance with defendant Nos.1 & 3 had succeeded in leaking
trade secrets of the plaintiff company. As already noted, it has been
averred that defendant Nos.1 & 3 had breached the
confidentiality clause, misused the confidential information at their
command during the course of their employment and passed on sensitive
information to defendant No.2 to enable the said defendant to develop
the products which were developed by the plaintiff company by
combination of acquisition of technical knowhow from a foreign
collaboration and refinement of technology through their own research
and development efforts. It is the case of the plaintiff that some
of the technologies developed by it gives them an edge in the highly
technical field in manufacturing certain engineering products. All
these according to the plaintiff happened within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
From the above, it
can be seen that the entire chain of events would reveal that at
least a part of cause of action insofar as defendant No.2 is
concerned also arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad.??
5. The learned Single
Judge has held that in order to judge the application under Order 7
Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, one cannot go into the nature of
defence that the defendants may put up, but has to confine the
enquiry about the averments made in the plaint by reading the plaint
as a whole and to find out whether it discloses any cause of action
or not.
6. We are in complete
agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the
plaint does disclose a cause of action against all the defendants,
including the present appellant ? defendant No.2 in the suit. We
are also in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge
that the entire chain of events reveals that at least a part of the
cause of action, in so far as defendant No.2 is concerned, also arose
within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at
Ahmedabad.
7. The appeals do not
raise any question of law, which needs to be decided in these
Letters Patent Appeals. We according, dismiss the appeals with a
clarification that the trial court shall hear and decide the suit on
merits, without being influenced by the observations made by the
learned Single Judge or by this Court.
8. The appeals are
dismissed. Accordingly, Civil Applications also stand disposed of.
(M.S. Shah,
Actg. C.J.)
(D.H. Waghela,
J.)
*/Mohandas
Top