AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. No,Exhibits,Date,Description of documents
1.,P-1,30.04.2010,The original resolution passed by the plaintiff company
2.,P-2,24.04.2011,The original appointment letter
3.,P-3,05.11.2002,The copy of the confirmation letter
4.,P-4,01.05.2004,The original promotion letter of the defendant
5.,P-5,22.05.2006,The Original non-disclosure and proprietary information agreement
6.,P-6,27.11.2010,The copy of e-mail relating to resignation
7.,P-7,12.01.2011,The copy of letter of acceptance
8.,P-8,12.01.2011,The original letter
9.,P-9,18.08.2010,The copy of application submitted before the Registrar of Copy Right
10.,P-10,12.09.2010,The acknowledgment
11.,P-11,-,The Original Product literature of the plaintiff
12.,P-12,05.02.2011,The Original Private Investigator''s report.
above referred Employee Non-Competition, Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement, he is guilty of copyright infringement and theft of",,,
the intellectual properties of the plaintiff.,,,
Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff company and perused the records.",,,
P.W.1, who is the authorised representative of the plaintiff company, has given evidence about the ''''QUBE SOFTWARE'', including",,,
intellectual properties. He has also spoken about the defendant''s employment with the plaintiff company as well as the agreement entered into,,,
between them to maintain the confidential information with regard to the software technology. Evidence of P.W.1 further shows that the defendant,,,
under the pretext of appointment has gained knowledge with regard to the plaintiff''s Source Code and left the office and joined with the plaintiff''s,,,
competitor, namely, Prasad Group. The evidence of P.W.1 remain unchallenged.",,,
From the records it is seen that Ex.P2, is the original appointment letter issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant. Ex.P3 the letter issued",,,
by the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff company, shows that service of the defendant was confirmed. Ex.P3 also proved the salary paid to",,,
the defendant. Ex.P5 is the original non-disclosure and Proprietary information agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant,,,
dated 22.05.2006, wherein the defendant has agreed to maintain confidential information with regard to the trade secrets and also all work",,,
including the Intellectual Property in their business. Clause 6 of the agreement clearly shows that the employee shall neither pursue any business,,,
opportunity outside Company and nor take any position with any organisation other than Company without Company`s prior written approval. The,,,
above agreement has been signed by the defendant herein. Ex.P6 is the resignation letter sent by the defendant. In Ex.P7 the plaintiff company has,,,
informed about the contents of the Employee Non- Competition, Non -Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement. Ex.P7 also shows that",,,
exit interview was conducted by the plaintiff company to the defendant on 11.01.2011, wherein also the defendant was appraised of the aforesaid",,,
agreement. The defendant has also given confirmation that he has been briefed about the contents of the agreement referred to above, which is",,,
evident from Ex.P8. Ex.P9 is the application for registration of copyright ""QUBE"". Ex.P11 is the brochure of the plaintiff company. Ex.P12 is the",,,
Private Investigation Report filed by the plaintiff company to show that the defendant was seen in the plaintiff company''s competitor Office.,,,
From the pleadings made in the plaint as well as from the evidence of P.W.1., it could be seen that the plaintiff company''s business is based on",,,
the Intellectual Property Rights and Software specifically designed for that and utmost confidence is required to sustain such business, particularly,",,,
when there are healthy competitors available for the said business. The defendant having entered into agreement to maintain such confidence about,,,
the trade marks, other secrets and Intellectual Property Rights, he cannot use the knowledge, which was derived from the plaintiff company, to the",,,
other company, which is said to be the competitor.",,,
The defendant remained ex parte. From the evidence of P.W.1 and documents marked, particularly, the agreement entered into between the",,,
plaintiff company and the defendant, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff company is, certainly, entitled for injunction as prayed for, otherwise,",,,
there is every likelihood of sharing the secret information of the plaintiff company''s business to the other competitor. Accordingly, this Court hold",,,
that the plaintiff company has established its case.,,,
In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for.",,,