(1.) This is an application for interim reliefs in aid of an appeal preferred from an interlocutory order passed on the 18th April, 2004, whereby the learned Judge, granted only one part of the prayers of injunction made by the plaintiff/appellant. An order was granted restraining defendants 2 to 7 from divulging secrets, but an order restraining them altogether from working with the first defendant was refused.
(2.) The matter is pending final disposal before the Interlocutory Court and directions for affidavits have been given. However, the matter is due to appear again only in December this year. The appeal has been filed on grounds of urgency. In these circumstances, we propose to dispose of the appeal along with the application for stay and the appeal is, therefore, treated as on the day's list. Since the appeal is from an ad interim order only, it would not be right to keep the appeal pending and to allow subsequent interim order of the Interlocutory Court to wipe out the appellate ad interim order for all purposes while the appeal goes on being in the pending state.
(3.) The grievance of the appellant is in regard to six of its employees who are defendants Nos. 2 to 7 in the suit. They also complain against the defendant No. 1 who is the first respondent and who is a rival manufacturer. The case of the appellant against its erstwhile employees is that they have broken their contract of employment which contained a clause prohibiting them from joining any competitors within five years after they leave service. The complaint against the first respondent is for inducement of breach of contract and for enticing away the said six employees; the appellant urges that the first respondent poached upon its employees.