M SIVASAMY Vs. VESTERGAARD FRANDSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order the connected appeals are being decided. Since the facts of all the appeals are common, being referable to the suit CS(OS) 599/07 pending in the original side of this court, for the purpose of convenience, reference is being made to facts and parties appearing in the appeal

(2.) THE issue which requires to be addressed in these appeals is : where two parties are claiming exclusive ownership rights in a product and its confidential/proprietary information along with related copyright material, then in such a case whether one party is entitled to seek production of documents with respect to the product of the other party under the provisions of Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. The related issue is if the production of the documents is to be allowed, then, what precautions are to be observed to protect the rights of the party against whom production of documents is ordered. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed the applications of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to "discover " in a sealed cover the documents as stated in the order by a direction for 'production' of said documents.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the defendants is that defendant No.6 (Appellant No.3) is the inventor of this product and he is a scientist. It is stated that he was only working as a Consultant and an independent contractor giving consultation to the plaintiffs. The product of the plaintiffs as also of the defendants has been developed on the advice of Ciba which is a leading producer of additives which are to be added to PE products to protect them from degradation by ultraviolet light. Being an independent contractor, the defendant No.6 claims that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the proprietary/confidentiality information with respect to the product in question and it is claimed that the plaintiffs " claim that they first came upon knowledge or that it was their trade secret is false, misleading and untrue. It is stated that the product Fence of the plaintiff and Netprotect of the defendants were different and that the defendant No.6 using Ciba "s recommendation took a different route to develop "NETPROTECT " (product of the defendants) which was done in 18 months and that there has been no copy of the confidential information of the plaintiffs. All the defendants have basically taken up a common stand that there is no misappropriation of the plaintiffs " confidential information nor any attempt to base the product of the defendants on the plaintiff's product or that the two products are the same. Reference to the defendants hereafter will mean reference to the relevant defendant/defendants.