Anil Mehta vs Navneet Khanolkar on 21 July, 2026

    0
    9
    ADVERTISEMENT

    1. By this petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
    Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has asked for different
    interim ex parte reliefs against respondent Nos.1 and 8. The
    petitioner says that the respondents are wrongly using and
    disclosing its confidential and proprietary information and are also
    approaching its clients and employees in breach of their
    contractual obligations. According to the petitioner, these acts are
    causing serious and irreparable loss to its business. It has therefore
    prayed that the respondents be restrained from doing so till the
    arbitration proceedings are finally decided, the arbitral award is
    made, and the award is fully enforced.

    SPONSORED

    2. According to the petitioner, the facts leading to the present
    petition are as follows. Respondent No.1 was working with Parekh
    Marketing Limited and his service conditions were governed by his
    appointment letter dated 20 August 1998. On 6 July 2017, Parekh
    Marketing Limited entered into a Business Transfer Agreement
    with ATS Global B.V., under which the business of Sarla

    arbp611-2025 with ial18920-2026.doc

    Technologies was transferred. Thereafter, on 24 August 2017,
    respondent No.1 sent an email to the employees of Sarla
    Technologies informing them about the business transfer and
    stating that their existing terms of employment would continue
    without any change. On 1 September 2017, Sarla Technologies
    was merged with the petitioner, which is a wholly owned
    subsidiary of ATS Global B.V. Respondent No.1 was thereafter
    appointed as the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of
    the petitioner under a fresh Employment Agreement dated 21
    September 2017. The petitioner further states that in June 2022
    respondent No.2 exported company contacts from his official
    laptop. It is the case of respondent No.1 that around July 2023 he
    was asked by the Chairman of ATS to sign an agreement with a
    back date of October 2017, but he refused. According to
    respondent No.1, in August 2023 he was also forced to leave the
    petitioner company after being promised a separation package of
    more than Rs.2 crores. Between 3 November 2023 and 9
    November 2023, emails were exchanged between Mark McCoy,
    respondent No.1 and Kevin Partington regarding the formula for
    the proposed separation agreement. On 22 November 2023, the
    services of respondent No.1 came to be terminated. Thereafter, by
    a letter dated 19 December 2023, the petitioner alleged that
    respondent No.1 had misappropriated an amount of
    Rs.27,77,629/-. The petitioner also stated that an audit was in
    progress and, after adjusting the said amount, only Re.1 would be
    payable to respondent No.1. On 11 February 2024, respondent
    No.8, namely Percivon Technologies, was incorporated as a private

    arbp611-2025 with ial18920-2026.doc

    limited company under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner
    further states that on 6 May 2024 respondent No.9 forwarded
    confidential information from his official email account to his
    personal email account. The services of respondent No.9 came to
    an end on 11 June 2024, and he joined Percivon Technologies in
    February 2025. Similarly, respondent No.5 left the petitioner on 12
    June 2024 and joined Percivon Technologies in July 2024.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here