R KANNAN Vs. INDCHEM ELECTRONICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned is not a judgment within the meaning of Cl. 15 Letters Patent of this High Court. Much argument was addressed by both the parties on this substantive question of law as to the scope, ambit and meaning of the word 'judgment'. As we are not concerned with the entire facts of the case, it is not necessary to deal with the same in this judgment, but suffice to mention certain salient facts for the determination of the legal question.

(2.) The respondent-company has filed C.S. 551 of 1987 for the following reliefs:- (a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 6 lakhs as damages for the torts committed by them; (b) restraining the defendants from carrying on business activity in the manufacture of computers and computer peripherals like Alpha computers and computer peripherals like Alpha Numeric terminals. Colour graphic Terminals and other products identical or similar in design, composition and, configuration as that of the plaintiff's indigenously developed products and from making use of materials such as designs, drawings, bill of materials and other valuable information pertaining to the manufacture of the products referred to above that have been illegally obtained, stolen from the plaintiff company through the first defendant";

(3.) The above reliefs are based on the allegation that the first appellant-first defendant, a Master of Engineering from Indian Institute of Science, was holding a managerial position in the respondent-company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale, installation, servicing and maintenance of professional electronics equipments such as biomedical equipments, mini computers, computer terminals, personal computers and other micro-processor based system, and he was actively associated with the respondent-company in the research and development activities relating to new products like Alpha Numberic Terminal, Colour Graphic Terminal, etc. According to the respondent, as per Clause 6 of the order of appointment dt. 11-7-1983, the first appellant was to maintain strict secrecy with regard to the work which may come to his knowledge, in the course of his work and was prohibited from engaging in any other trade, business, or occupation while on leave or off or on holiday without obtaining the Managements prior permission in writing. Cl.5 of the appointment order states that the first appellant would be governed by all the rules and regulations and Standing Orders of the respondent-company. While it is so, according to the respondent, in the first half of 1986 defendants 1 to 4 and conceived the idea of entering the field of manufacture of computer terminals and computers and other micro-processor based systems by piraring the technology of the respondent-company through the medium of the first appellant and as part of this master plan, the fifth appellant firm was to be formed in the first instance with the participation of the second and third appellants and the induction of the first and fourth appellants subsequently. The respondent had come to know that the first appellant, in violation of Clauses 5 and 6 of the respondent order had not only committed breach of contract, but also committed breach of trust by pirating the technical know how relating to the manufacture of Alpha Numeric Terminals Colour Graphic Terminals and other computer peripherals as well as personal computers, which have been developed by the Research and Development wing of the respondent-company at enormous cost. The first appellant resigned from the service of the respondent-company on 4-6-1987, on being demanded of it by the company in order to prevent further theft and piracy of the technology. It is the further case of the respondent that first appellant along with appellants 2 to 4, as partners of the fifth appellant firm is committing tortious act of manufacturing indigenous products of the respondent-company by making use of the technology, bill of materials, market information etc., of the respondent-company that had been illegally obtained stolen, pirated, and passed on the same to the fifth appellant.