LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-405

ARCADIA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. J SELVAKUMAR

Decided On February 24, 2017
Arcadia Consulting Services Pvt Ltd Appellant
V/S
J Selvakumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed for a declaration that the defendant's claim for alleged ownership/entitlement over the alleged innovation of the business module of electronic health record and complete business integration for Laboratory Insurance E-Prescription Immunization and any interfaces is false and illegal, for permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from making any groundless legal threats and from posting and circulating false information in public domain and claiming royalty or compensation from the plaintiff based on the said innovations, in the print and visual media and online directly or otherwise and for costs.

(2.) The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows :

(3.) The defendant did not have any prior experience or academic qualification in the filed of health Care processes and technology. In fact, the management team had to set aside most of their time in training and educating the defendant in the business process and thereby incurred huge cost apart from the fact that it was time consuming and loss of profits. Despite the said training, the defendant took more than the average requisite time to comprehend and grasp the work given to him. The defendant, apart from being an under performer, has kept forwarding most of the secured and confidential email communication from his official email ID to his personal "gmail" ID during the course of his employment and services to the plaintiff without the permission of the management and bypassing standard company instructions and thereby violated the terms of his employment and contracts. The defendant unable to perform his responsibilities has resigned vide email dated 23rd July, 2009. Subsequently, on his request and the request of his family the plaintiff engaged him as a consultant for one month on a trial basis to evaluate if he can be productive. However, after 30 days, the plaintiff decided to remove him as a consultant because he is not able to perform to the level of expectation.