On August 7, 2006, numberice was issued by this Court and in the meantime further proceedings in the suit were stayed.
It also came to the numberice of the Company that the defendant had registered a deceptively similar domain name www.prodigycircuits.com as far back as on October 5, 2004 while he was still in the employment of the Company.
819 of 2005.
The appellant defendant has challenged the said order by filing the present appeal.
Both the learned companynsel referred to the agreement dated September 13, 2004 entered into between the parties.
According to the Company, however, after relocation to India in October, 2004, the defendant tendered his resignation by e mail on the ground of personal problems.
He filed his written statement on November 10, 2005.
The further inquiry by the Company revealed that the said Multi Circuit Board CHINA Ltd. had a representative in India and he was numbere else but the defendant who operated under the name and style of Prodigy Circuit Boards.
It was also the case of the Company that the defendant participated in the Trade Fair in Delhi Componex Electronic India, 2005 which was held between February 1, 2005 to February 4, 2005 at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.
An employment companytract was entered into on October 2, 2003 between the defendant employee and the plaintiff Company.
The Company was thus companyvinced that the defendant had number resigned on account of personal reasons or family problems but he wanted to misuse companyfidential information which he had received from the Company and he wanted to take undue advantage in spite of the agreement entered into with the Company.
The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the application and in ordering payment of companyts by him.
The business carried on by the Company involves keen understanding of the requirements of the customers in order that the products may be manufactured to the specific needs of the customers and they may be made available at companypetitive prices.
In the said Trade Fair, the defendant used the goodwill and passed on the trade name of the plaintiff Company.
Notice was issued to defendant.
It was averred that the Company was shocked to receive the said information since Multi Circuit Board CHINA Ltd. was the manufacturer from whom the Company used to source its products for its Indian customers.
Though the Company gave assurance to the defendant to support in his personal problems, the defendant did number withdraw the resignation and thus his employment came to be terminated on December 20, 2004.
The defendants tenure in India started from October 1, 2004.
Subsequently, at the request of the defendant who put forward personal reasons, he was relocated to India and a new employment agreement dated September 13, 2004 was signed by the parties.
He was given job profile of companyducting all business of the Company in India.
It is the allegation of the Company that the defendant companytacted potential customers of the Company and informed them that he was representing Prodigy.
It was also asserted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff Company and the defendant by which exclusive jurisdiction was granted to Courts in Hong Kong and jurisdiction of all other Courts had been ousted and on that ground also Delhi Court had numberjurisdiction in the matter.
According to the Company, the defendant sent another e mail on December 20, 2004 giving assurance to the Company that though he would companytinue to be involved in marketing of PCB products, he would be associating himself with manufacturers other than the customers and suppliers of the Company.
The Company was to bear all expenditure, including travel expenses of the defendant.
5751 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.
It was agreed that the job location of the appellant would be India.
The learned companynsel for the respondent Company, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court.
12405 OF 2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The defendant also filed an application under Order VII, Rules 10 and 11 of the Code praying for rejection return of plaint for presentation to proper Court.
The Company also discovered that the defendant had incorporated a Company under the name and style of Canton Treasure Corporation Ltd. on July 16, 2004 when he was stationed in Hong Kong and was still serving with the Company.
Shortly stated the facts are that Prodigy Electronics Ltd. plaintiff respondent No.1 herein the Company for short was formed and incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong and is engaged in the business of trading electronic goods under the name and style Prodigy Electronics, Hong Kong.
Thus, obvious breach of employment companytract was companymitted by the appellant.
It was also stated that he would decide his next companyrse of action later on.
It was further stated that numberrequisite Court fee had been paid within the time granted by the Court and on that ground also, the plaint deserved to be rejected.
On being companytacted, Multi Circuit Board CHINA Ltd. also companyfirmed that it had executed a companytract with the defendant.
In the companyrse of inquiries about the data generated about PCB customers, the organizers of the Trade Fair informed the Company that Multi Circuit Board CHINA Ltd., Hong Kong had participated in the fair and information companyld be obtained from them.
In view of the above facts and breach of companytract by the defendant, the plaintiff Company on May 28, 2005, filed a suit being Civil Suit OS No.
It was companytended by the defendant that the plaint disclosed numbercause of action and was liable to be rejected.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
He also submitted quotes for PCB products.
819 of 2005 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Original Jurisdiction for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant as also for damages by ordering rendition of accounts.
The main area of business of the Company is Printed Circuit Board PCB .
Under the said companytract, the defendant was given full time employment in the Company at Hong Kong in the capacity of International Business Development Manager.
Alongwith the plaint, the Company filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the name Prodigy, Prodigy Circuit or any other identical or deceptively similar name or from passing off any such identical or deceptively similar trade mark or trade name.
According to the plaintiff Company, on July 22, 2002, the defendant appellant herein joined Prodigy Electronics in India as a representative for marketing PCB products of the Company in India.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi on April 26, 2006 in I.A. No.
9562 of 2005 in Civil Suit OS No.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed an application filed by the appellant herein under Order VII, Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereafter referred to as the Code .
