SUNGRO SEEDS LTD. Vs. S.K.TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ia No.10058/2013 (of the defendant no.3 under Order VII R-11 CPC).

(2.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit, pleading (i) that the plaintiff is in the business of research, production, processing, marketing and sale of high quality hybrids and varietal seeds; (ii) that the defendant no.1 Dr. S.K. Tripathi and defendant no.2 Mr. Akhalesh Shukla are ex-employees of the plaintiff who have joined the employment of and are currently employed with the defendant no.3, a competitor of the plaintiff; (iii) that the plaintiff, to protect sensitive and confidential information relating to the product and product development know-how, varieties, hybrids, parent-lines, breeding strategies and associated know-how and trade secrets developed by the plaintiff, requires its employees to, at the time of joining the plaintiff company, enter into an employment agreement and undertake not to disclose any such sensitive and confidential information to any third party during the course of employment and at any time thereafter; (iv) the plaintiff also mandates its employees to execute a Deed of Assignment of all rights, title and interest to any and all intellectual property developed by the employee or in the development of which the employee has contributed, during the term of the employment with the plaintiff, to the plaintiff; (v) similar contracts were executed by the defendants no.1 & 2 also; (vi) that the defendants no.1 & 2 had access to the plaintiff's intellectual property including trade secrets such as the parent lines of the plaintiff's hybrids and seeds used for cultivation of the parent lines of the plaintiff's hybrids, breeding strategies etc.; (vii) one of the hybrid varieties developed by the plaintiff is the Cauliflower Hybrid no.SCFH-130 sold in the market under the name 'Katreena', which was released for commercial sale in the year 2006; (viii) that the defendant no.1 joined the plaintiff's predecessor on 1st January, 2001 as General Manager in Research Development Department and was responsible for conducting all research and development activities in relation to vegetable seeds of the plaintiff; (ix) that the defendant no.2 joined the plaintiff's predecessor on 1st January, 2001 as a Senior Field Assistant and was further designated as Technical Officer in the R & D Department; (x) the defendant no.1 supervised research and development activities of the plaintiff's hybrid seeds including the research relating to SCFH-130; (xi) the defendant no.2 had access to the plaintiff's confidential and sensitive information, data, breeding strategies and information for Cauliflower Hybrids including SCFH-130; (xii) that the defendant no.1 left the services of the plaintiff on 5th April, 2008; (xiii) that the defendant no.2 left the services of the plaintiff on 18th December, 2008; (xiv) that the defendants no.1 & 2 are currently employed with the defendant no.3; (xv) the defendants no.l & 2, at the time of joining the services of the plaintiff, had entered into employment agreement whereunder they had agreed to keep confidential all matters relating to their job and employment with the plaintiff and not to give to anyone any particulars or details of any of the research, process or of administrative and/or organizational matter of confidential nature to which they would come across during the course of their employment with the plaintiff; (xvi) the defendants no.1 & 2 had also executed Assignment Deeds as aforesaid; (xvii) the defendants no.1 & 2 had also submitted representations to not disclose to any third party any information obtained by them by virtue of nature of their duty with the plaintiff; (xviii) in the last week of October, 2010, the plaintiff came across packets of hybrid cauliflower seeds in the market which carried the photographs of the plaintiff's hybrid cauliflower SCFH-130, being marketed under the name 'Riya' and claiming almost identical characteristic features as that of the plaintiff's hybrid SCFH-130; (xix) the tests got conducted by the plaintiff also disclosed that the seeds of the defendant no.3 had 100% identical characteristic features as that of the plaintiff's hybrid SCFH-130 variety; (xx) it cannot be co-incidence that defendant no.3's 'Riya' has identical morphological traits and genetic traits to the plaintiff's 'Katreena'; (xxi) had the defendant no.3 developed its own parent line and hybrid, there would have been substantial difference between the genetic as well as morphological make up; (xxii) the defendant no.3 knowingly misappropriated the trade secret parent lines of the plaintiff and also acquired the confidential information relating to breeding strategies, soil conditions for breeding impugned hybrid, from defendants no.l & 2; (xxiii) the defendants no.1 & 2 have violated their employment agreement and representation to the plaintiff; and, (xxiv) that the defendant no.3 has indulged in unfair competition by wrongfully exploiting the plaintiff's valuable confidential information, trade secrets, copyright and other intellectual property rights.

(3.) The suit came up before this Court first on 31st May, 2013 when though no ex parte ad interim relief sought granted and no Court Commissioner as sought appointed but the defendants were directed to within three days of their service deposit the parental line of 'Riya' before this Court in a sealed state so that it could be tested or compared with that of the plaintiff.