LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-159

MANYA EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AMIT MATHUR

Decided On July 12, 2019
Manya Education Private Limited Appellant
V/S
Amit Mathur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - Manya Education Private Limited against Defendant No.l - Mr. Amit Mathur, Defendant No.2 - Mr. Salman Salim and Defendant No.3 - Sable Edtech Private Limited. The case of the Plaintiff is that Defendant No. l was employed as the COO (Chief Operating Officer) of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 was appointed as Business Development Head-Admissions of the Plaintiff.

(2.) The Plaintiff is involved in the business of providing services to aspirants who seek admissions in universities abroad. The Plaintiff's services are in the form of consultancy services, to guide aspirants through their admission process, starting from shortlisting of colleges, test preparation, developing a competitive application strategy, interview preparation, foreign language training, and visa services. The Plaintiff claims to be the largest partner of The Princeton Review ('TPR'), which is a world-renowned creator of test preparation courses. It has a large number of students who appear in GRE, GMAT, SAT, ACT, TOEFL and IELTS. The Plaintiff also claims to be an alliance partner of an entity called Admissionado in India. Admissionado provides a special approach to mentorship. It puts the students in touch with distinguished alumni of leading universities.

(3.) The grievance in the present suit is that Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 both left the services of Plaintiff with effect from 31st October, 2018 and February, 2019, respectively. However, even prior to leaving the employment of the Plaintiff by them, it has come to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that Defendant Nos. l & 2 had started giving competing services by using the mark 'SABLE'. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that apart from starting an identical business/service, even during subsistence of their employment with the Plaintiff, the Defendants had also started approaching various customers and clients of the Plaintiff and are, therefore, violating the terms and conditions of employment with the Plaintiff.