Bangalore District Court
Advance Cable Technologies Private … vs Sanu S Nath on 18 July, 2026
170020142022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU (CCH-87)
Dated this the 18th day of JULY, 2026
Present: SRI JITHENDRANATH C.S., B.A., LL.M.,
LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.1073/2022
BETWEEN:
PLAINTIFF : ADVANCE CABLE TECHNOLOGIES
PRIVATE LIMITED,
A company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at:
G-1, Sunrise Serenity, No.1,
40 Feet Road, M.R.Garden,
Gedanahalli, Ashwathnagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka - 560094.
Represented by its Director,
Shashank Kumar Jain.
(By Sri.Ajay J. Nandalike advocate)
- AND -
DEFENDANTS : 1. Mr.SANU S. NATH,
Son of Sukhdev Nath,
Aged about 32 years,
Employee of
Adity Composite Private Limited,
Residing at:
Balijan Bongaon Part,
Balijan, Tinsukia,
Assam-786171.
2
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Also having office/factory at:
Plot No.391 & 392,
Sub Layout of Sompura 1st Stage,
Industrial Area, Niduvanda,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural,
Karnataka - 562111.
2. Mrs. POMPI DAS,
Wife of Sanu S. Nath,
Aged about 26 years,
Director of
Adity Composite Private Limited,
Residing at Balijan Bongaon Part
Balijan, Tinsukia
Assam-786171.
Also having office/factory at:
Plot No.391 & 392,
Sub Layout of Sompura 1st Stage,
Industrial Area, Niduvanda,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural,
Karnataka - 562111.
3. Mr. MONTU DAS,
Son of Gyan Das
Aged Major
Director of
Adity Composite Private Limited,
Residing at Balijan Bongaon Part,
Balijan, Tinsukia,
Assam - 786171.
Also having office/factory at:
Plot No 391 & 392, Sub Layout of Sompura
1st Stage Industrial Area, Niduvanda
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural,
Karnataka 562111.
4. ADITY COMPOSITE PRIVATE LIMITED,
A company registered under the
3
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Companies Act, 2013
Having its Registered Office at,
Plot No 391 & 392,
Sub Layout of Sompura,
1st Stage Industrial Area,
Niduvanda Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural,
Karnataka-562111,
Represented by its Director.
(By Sri. Rishabha Raj Thakur, advocate)
Date of Institution : 28.07.2022
Nature of the suit : Infringement of Trade Secrets
and for recovery of damages.
Date of the commencement : 17.01.2024
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 18.07.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 00 20
Digitally signed by
JITHENDRANATH S
JITHENDRANATH CHELUR
S CHELUR Date: 2026.07.18
17:40:53 +0530
(JITHENDRANATH C.S.)
LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is said to be a company interalia engaged
in the business of manufacture and process of copper and
other metals based various types of wires/cables, optical
cables, wire harnesses, compounding telecom cables,
Automotive cables, cables and harnesses for Electrical
4
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Vehicles, Charging Stations, inter connects etc. The
defendant No.1 was an employee of the plaintiff company.
The defendant No.1 had provided with six months training
effective from 02.11.2015 in which he had undergone the
process of manufacturing and handling of various
machineries and tools. He was promoted from trainee
supervisor to supervisor vide letter dated 01.11.2016 and he
was entrusted with responsibilities to take care of the day
today affairs of the factory and office of the plaintiff company.
Vide letter dated 01.07.2017 his appointment was confirmed
as supervisor. Having taken consideration of his long
standing relationship the plaintiff company promoted him as
engineer. The defendant No.1 had signed an employment
contract dated 01.04.2018 through which he under took that
he would not divulge in any confidential information, know-
how, secret, methods, plans, data and such other trade
secrets of the plaintiff company that he acquired during his
course of service. The defendant No.1 was later promoted to
the post of manager vide letter dater 01.10.2020 and entered
in to a fresh employment agreement and code of conduct
dated 01.10.2020 with the plaintiff company. The plantiff
5
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
company had three units and the defendant No.1 was in
charge and responsible to manage unit No.2 and unit No.3.
By the virtue of his position as a manager, the defendant
No.1 had a complete knowledge of the entire workings of the
plaintiff, its trade secrets including commercial information
in relation to customers, proprietary trade secrets in relation
to chemical and physical composition of the cables. The
design specifications and the materials and material used for
manufacturing of the cables are unique and not available in
public domain. By the virtue of being a manager the
defendant No.1 had learnt about the design, make and
method of manufacture of the cables and also the details of
the plaintiff ‘s customers. The plaintiff holds the copyright in
respect of the design, shape, drawing, specifications,
components, materials and method of manufacture of the
cables. The plaintiff is one of the largest manufacturers and
suppliers in the country and the plaintiff supplies to various
customers, Government bodies and Public Sector
undertakings like Railway, Defence, Metro and many other
domestic and multi national companies. The plaintiff alleges
that the defendant No.1 had taken out materials worth of
6
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Rs.25,60,000/- from Unit No.2 of the plaintiff company in the
guise of transporting the same to Unit No.3 and when the
plaintiff verified the records, the defendant sent a resignation
letter dated 12.03.2022. The plaintiff further alleges that the
defendant No.1 in conspiracy with his wife Smt. Pompi Das
i.e., defendant No.2, his father-in-law Sri Montu Das i.e.,
defendant No.3, has started the defendant No.4 company in
the same line of business the plaintiff is carrying on.
According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is one of the largest
manufacturers and supplier to various customers namely
Crest Specialty Resins Pvt Ltd., OCV India/Balaji Trading
Company, Jushi India Fiberglass Pvt. Ltd., Goa Glass Fibre
Ltd., Chemclotex Corporation, ACS UV Technologies,
Precision Panel Technology, V Cube Industries, Sai
Extrumech Pvt. Ltd., and Sunil Engineering. The Defendants
are approached the above suppliers and also supplying the
materials to the competitors’ companies viz., Jyothi Cables,
Semita Technologies Pvt Ltd., KEC International Limited,
West Coast/Telecom/Sudarshan Telecom, Poly Links and
Akash Cables. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant
against to his undertaking soliciting the customers of the
7
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
plaintiff. In this background, the plaintiff has filed this suit
seeking the following reliefs:
a) Grant permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, their officers, directors, employees,
agents, representatives, successors in interest,
assignees or anybody acting through them or on
their behalf from, in any manner whatsoever,
utilising and disclosing the Plaintiff’s trade secret,
confidential, strategic and proprietary information
acquired by Defendant No.1 virtue of his
association with the Plaintiff;
b) Grant permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants their officers, directors, employees,
agents, representatives, successors in interest,
assignees or anybody acting through them or on
their behalf from infringing the copyright and
trade secrets of the Plaintiff;
c) Grant permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, their officers, directors, employees,
agents, representatives, successors in interest,
assignees or anybody acting through them or on
their behalf from, in any manner whatsoever from
soliciting the clients and/or customers of the
Plaintiff Company or in any manner entering into
any agreements with them;
8
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
d) Grant permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, their officers, directors, employees,
agents, representatives, successors in interest,
assignees or anybody acting through them or on
their behalf from, in any manner whatsoever from
soliciting the employees of the Plaintiff Company
and appointing the ex-employees of the Plaintiff
Company to the Defendant No.4 company;
e) Grant permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, their officers, directors, employees,
agents, representatives, successors in interest,
assignees or anybody acting through them or on
their behalf from, in any manner whatsoever from
approaching the suppliers of the Plaintiff company
and supplying materials to any of the competitors
of the Plaintiff Company;
f) Grant permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, their officers, directors, employees,
agents, representatives, successors in interest,
assignees or anybody acting through them or on
their behalf from, in any manner whatsoever from
disclosing the technology of the Plaintiff Company
and selling the machineries similar to that of the
Plaintiff Company to any of the competitors of the
Plaintiff Company;
9
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
g) Direct the Defendants to pay sum of Rs.
Rs.25,60,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh and
Sixty Thousand Only) along with 18% interest
towards the damages for the loss caused to the
Plaintiff Company;
h) Grant the cost of the instant Suit; and
i) Grant any other relief or reliefs, that this Hon’ble
court may deem fit.
2. The Defendants No.1 to 4 have filed a common written
statement traversing the averments contained in the plaint.
It is admitted that the Defendant No.1 was formerly in the
employment of the Plaintiff-Company. However, it is
contended that even prior to joining the services of the
Plaintiff-Company, the Defendant No.1 possessed over five
years of prior work experience. It is further pleaded that
during the period of his training, the Defendant No.1 in fact
apprised the Plaintiff-Company of the manufacturing process
of its products and rendered assistance in augmenting its
business operations. The Defendants have categorically
denied that the Plaintiff-Company imparted any training to
10
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
the Defendant No.1, or that it disclosed to him the
manufacturing process, customer particulars, and other
trade secrets. It is averred that the Plaintiff-Company had
reposed confidence in the Defendant No.1 and entrusted him
with the management of product planning, quality control,
and product development. The specific averment that the
Defendant No.1 was in-charge of and responsible for the
management of Unit No.1 and Unit No.3 is denied. It is
further pleaded that prior to joining the Plaintiff-Company,
the Defendant No.1 had been in employment with three other
companies.
3. The Defendants have denied the allegation made
against the Defendant No.1 that he had removed materials
from Unit No.1 and Unit No.3. It is, however, admitted that
the Defendant No.1 tendered his resignation to the Plaintiff-
Company. Save and except the said admission, the
Defendants have denied all other allegations levelled against
the Defendant No.1. It is contended that there are over one
thousand companies operating in the same line of business
across the country. The Defendants assert that they have no
11
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
malafide intention either to compete with the Plaintiff-
Company or to cause it any loss. It is further averred that
the Defendant No.1 did not acquire any confidential
information during the course of his employment with the
Plaintiff-Company. It is also pleaded that the Defendant No.1
joined the Plaintiff-Company as a Training Supervisor in the
year 2015 and continued in its service till 22.03.2026. It is
stated that the Defendant No.2 incorporated a company
under the name and style of ‘Adity Composite Private Limited’
on 28.06.2021. It is further contended that after the
resignation of the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff-Company
lodged a false complaint against him before the Dodballapur
Police Station in Crime No.68/2022, after an unexplained
delay of four months, alleging misappropriation. According to
the Defendants, the present suit has been instituted by the
Plaintiff-Company with malafide intention. In light of the
above submissions, the Defendants have prayed that this
Court be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the court has
framed the following issues:
12
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff prima facie proves that 1st
defendant being its former employee in
conspiracy with defendants 2 to 3 started 4th
defendant company in the same line of business
as that of plaintiff and manufacturing the similar
product using machinery which are exclusively
used by the plaintiff and thereby defendants are
required to be restrained by order of permanent
injunction?
2. Whether balance of convenience tilts in favour of
plaintiff?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that he will be put to
irreparable injury if an order of injunction
against defendants is not granted?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are also
liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,60,000/- by way of
damages along with interest for the loss caused
to the plaintiff company by them?
5 What order or decree?
5. In order to substantiate its case, the Plaintiff-Company
examined its Senior General Manager, Sri M. Harish, as
P.W.1, and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31. In
rebuttal, the Defendant No.1, Sri Sanu S. Nath, examined
himself as D.W.1, and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.3.
13
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
6. The court has heard the arguments of both the
parties.
7. Having heard the matter, the court answers the above
issues as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative,
Issue No.2 : In the negative,
Issue No.3 : In the negative,
Issue No.4 : In the negative,
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
Evidence before the court:-
8. In his evidence affidavit, P.W.1 Sri M. Harish has
reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The Plaintiff-
Company has produced and got marked the original Board
Resolution dated 08.01.2024 as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.22 are
21 documents filed along with the list of documents and
admitted by the Defendants in their Statement of Admission
and Denial, and accordingly marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.22
respectively. Ex.P.2 is a copy of the Certificate of Fresh
Incorporation and Ex.P.3 is a copy of the Certificate of
Incorporation. Ex.P.4 is the Certificate of Registration of
Alteration of Objects and Ex.P.5 is a copy of the Articles of
14
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Association. Ex.P.6 is a copy of the Offer Letter. Ex.P.7 is a
copy of the Trainee Supervisor Training Letter dated
02.11.2015 and Ex.P.8 is a copy of the Appointment Letter
dated 05.11.2018. Ex.P.9 is a copy of the Confirmation Letter
dated 01.05.2017 confirming the appointment of the
Defendant No.1 as Supervisor. Ex.P.10 is a copy of the
Promotion Letter dated 01.04.2018 promoting the Defendant
No.1 as Engineer and Ex.P.11 is a copy of the Employment
Agreement and Code of Conduct dated 01.04.2018 executed
by the Defendant No.1. Ex.P.12 is a copy of the Promotion
Letter dated 01.10.2020 promoting the Defendant No.1 to the
post of Manager and Ex.P.13 is a copy of the Employment
Agreement and Code of Conduct dated 01.10.2020. Ex.P.14 is
a copy of the Resignation Letter dated 12.03.2022 tendered
by the Defendant No.1. Ex.P.15 is the statement showing
transfer of materials from Unit No.2 to Unit No.3. Ex.P.16 is a
copy of Delivery Challan bearing No.095 relating to
transfer/delivery of materials. Ex.P.16(a) is a copy of the
logbook/register extract relating to outgoing material
transactions from Unit No.2 and Ex.P.16(b) is a copy of the
logbook/register extract relating to incoming material
15
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
transactions to Unit No.3. Ex.P.17 is a copy of the Certificate
of Incorporation of ‘Adity Composite Private Limited’, Ex.P.18
is a copy of its Memorandum of Association and Ex.P.19 is a
copy of its Articles of Association. Ex.P.20 is a copy of the
Company Master Data of ‘Adity Composite Private Limited’.
Ex.P.21 is a copy of the employee details/nominee details of
the Defendant No.1. Ex.P.22 is a copy of the Complaint Letter
dated 26.03.2022 lodged before Doddaballapura Police
Station seeking registration of FIR against the Defendant
No.1. Ex.P.23 is a copy of the FIR dated 29.03.2022. Ex.P.24
and Ex.P.25 are Notices dated 09.12.2022 issued to Guru
Krupa Consultancy Service and Mukarji Enterprises
respectively. Ex.P.26 is the Reply Notice dated 13.12.2022
issued by Guru Krupa Consultancy along with email and
postal cover. Ex.P.27 is the Employment Application and Bio-
data submitted by the Defendant No.1. Ex.P.28 is the
certified online copy of the Order dated 19.04.2022 passed in
Crl.Misc.1066/2022. Ex.P.29 is the Certificate under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31
are the Postal Receipts.
16
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
9. In his examination-in chief, DW.1, reiterated the
averments made in the written statement. Ex.D.1 is the copy
of the charge sheet filed in Doddaballapura Police Station,
Ex.D.1(a) is the copy of the statement of accused Mr.Sanu S.
Nath in Crime No.68/2022, Ex.D.1(b) is the copy of the
statement of accused Mrs.Pompi Das in Crime No.68/2022,
Ex.D.1(c) is the copy of the statement of accused Mr.Montu
Das in Crime No.68/2022, Ex.D.2 is the compliance affidavit
filed by defendant No.1, Ex.D.3 is the copy of the GSTR-3B
statement for the month of July 2021-2022,
Re.issues No.1 to 4:
10. It is not in dispute that the Defendant No.1 was in the
employment of the Plaintiff-Company. During the course of
his employment, the Defendant No.1 had executed an
Employment Agreement and Code of Conduct, which have
been marked and exhibited as Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13
respectively. A perusal of the recitals contained in the said
Agreement and Code of Conduct makes it evident that any
breach of the provisions thereof would constitute misconduct,
and that the employer would be at liberty to take disciplinary
17
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
action or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the
employee, namely the Defendant No.1.
11. Clause A of the said Agreement imposes an obligation
on the defendant No.1 to maintain confidentiality, which is as
follows:
a) Confidentiality: You are expected to maintain
utmost Confidentially with regard to the affairs of
the company and shall keep confidential any
information, whether written or oral ,which relates
to internal controls, computer or data processing
applications, routines, subroutines, techniques or
systems, or information concerning the business or
financial affairs and methods of operation or
proposed transactions, security procedures, trade
secrets, know-how, or inventions of the company or
its Affiliate, or any client, agent, contractor or
vendor during the tenure and also post
employment.
12. The Defendant No.1 has not disputed the said clause.
Having voluntarily executed the Agreement, the Defendant
No.1 was bound to adhere to the terms and conditions
stipulated therein, unless such terms are found to be illegal
18
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
or contrary to public policy. Sri M. Harish, the Senior
General Manager of the Plaintiff-Company, in his evidence
affidavit as P.W.1 has reiterated the case of the Plaintiff-
Company that the Defendant No.1 has committed breach of
the confidentiality clauses contained in the Agreement.
Information, by its very nature, is a “fact” capable of being
perceived by the senses and assimilated by the mind. In that
view of the matter, the onus lies upon the Plaintiff-Company
to establish, by cogent evidence, that the Defendant No.1
acquired certain knowledge and information in the course of
his employment with the Plaintiff-Company and that such
knowledge or information was of a confidential nature.
13. This Court has meticulously perused the evidence on
record. The Plaintiff has nowhere disclosed as to what precise
knowledge or information the Defendant No.1 acquired
during the course of his employment, nor as to how the said
information can be said to be confidential in nature. In
paragraph No.9 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has asserted that it
holds copyright in respect of the design, shape, drawing,
specifications, components, materials and method of
19
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
manufacture of cables. The Plaintiff-Company further claims
that its products are unique and are not available with any
other company. Having made such an assertion, it was
incumbent upon the Plaintiff-Company to specifically narrate
as to how its products are unique and as to how they differ
from the products of other companies. However, the Plaintiff
has not placed on record any material to demonstrate that it
has obtained patent, design registration, copyright, etc., in
respect of its products. Had the Plaintiff indeed possessed
copyrights, it ought to have produced the same for the
perusal of this Court. Since the Plaintiff has failed to produce
any such proof, this Court is constrained to infer that the
Plaintiff does not hold any such copyrights in its name. It
may be true that during the course of his employment with
the Plaintiff-Company, the Defendant No.1 might have
acquired certain knowledge, skills, experience, etc., both on
the administrative and technical side. However, all
knowledge, expertise and skills acquired during employment
do not ipso facto amount to confidential information. The
term “confidentiality” in the present context connotes
information, know-how, method, plan, data, etc., which is
20
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
known exclusively to the Plaintiff and its employees and to no
one else. The Plaintiff-Company has not placed before this
Court any such secret information, data or plan. In the
absence of placing on record the alleged confidential
information, the Plaintiff cannot contend that the Defendant
No.1 acquired confidential information during the course of
his employment. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has
deposed as follows:
“We have not taken any patent to manufacture of
fiber reinforced plastic. I do not know whether the
products of to company have been registered under
Copyright Act. I do not know who is the right
person in our company to say about the matters
relating to patent and copy rights. I do not know the
information with regard to manufacturing of FRP
and OFC available in the you-tube. It is true to
suggest that plenty of companies are
manufacturing FRP and OFC all over India and in
Karnataka”.
14. Learned counsel for the defendant cited a decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of American
Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Ms. Priya Puri,1 wherein the
1 2006 (3) L.L.N.217
21
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that general skill, technical
knowledge and the experience that an employee carries in his
memory and acquires in the course of employment or his
own, and their use after he leaves the company is not a
breach. In the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Beckman Coulter
International S.A.,2 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that,
the routine day-to-day affairs of the employer within the
knowledge of many and are commonly known are not trade
secrets; a trade secret is a formula, technical know-how or
peculiar method unknown to the others. The above extracted
portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1 makes it manifestly
clear that the Plaintiff-Company has failed to prove that it
holds any copyrights or patents. Merely because the
Defendant No.1 was an employee of the Plaintiff-Company
and that he acquired some general knowledge and skill in the
manufacture of OFC and FRP products, it is not possible to
jump to the conclusion that the Plaintiff-Company had
shared with him any confidential information and that he has
misused the same.
2 2006 SCC OnLine Del 743.
22
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
15. The Plaintiff-Company has pleaded and its witness
P.W.1 has stated in paragraph No.29 of his evidence affidavit
that the Defendants, by making use of the proprietary
information of the Plaintiff-Company acquired during the
course of employment of the Defendant No.1, have
approached the suppliers of the Plaintiff-Company for
purchase of materials and have commenced manufacture by
utilizing the alleged confidential data and trade secrets of the
Plaintiff-Company. It is further alleged that the Defendants
are supplying such products to competitor companies of the
Plaintiff with an intent to make unlawful gains and to cause
loss to the Plaintiff-Company. The Plaintiff has also furnished
the names of such manufacturing companies in the said
paragraph. However, in his cross-examination, P.W.1 has
admitted the suggestion that raw materials required for the
production of cables, OFC and FRP are readily available in
Mumbai, China, Delhi and in Gulf Countries. From the said
admission, it is manifest that the raw materials are available
in the open market and are not exclusive to the Plaintiff-
Company. In that view of the matter, information with respect
to the suppliers of the Plaintiff-Company cannot, by any
23
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
stretch, be termed as proprietary information or confidential
information. Further, the Plaintiff-Company has failed to
establish by any cogent evidence that it is the exclusive
purchaser of raw materials from the companies mentioned in
paragraph No.29 of the evidence affidavit of P.W.1. In the
absence of such proof, the mere allegation that the
Defendants approached the said suppliers does not, by itself,
constitute misappropriation of confidential information or
trade secrets.
16. It is the specific allegation of the Plaintiff-Company that
the Defendant No.1, in the guise of transporting materials
from Unit No.2 to Unit No.3, has stolen materials worth
Rs.25,60,000/-. Pursuant to the said allegation, the Plaintiff-
Company lodged a complaint against the Defendant No.1
alleging theft and misappropriation of materials. After
investigation, the police have filed a ‘B’ Final Report in the
matter. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that at
the time of shifting materials from one unit to another, the
Manager and the Store Keeper would ordinarily be
responsible. The Company verifies inter-unit transactions
24
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
once in every two to three months. At the gate of every unit, a
Security Guard maintains a ledger regarding the ingress and
egress of transporting vehicles. Similarly, the Store Keeper
also maintains a ledger containing the particulars of
materials received and dispatched. It is, however, pertinent
to note that the Plaintiff-Company has not produced any
such registers before this Court. Absolutely there is no
positive or cogent evidence on record to draw an inference
that the Defendant No.1 has committed theft of goods worth
Rs.25,60,000/-. The Plaintiff-Company has made an attempt
to demonstrate that the Defendant-Company, despite there
being no production, has sold the products of the Plaintiff-
Company and thereby earned wrongful gain. The act of theft,
however, is a positive act and requires to be established by
positive evidence. Had the alleged theft really taken place, the
Plaintiff-Company ought to have produced the relevant
ledgers maintained by the Store Keeper and the Security
Guard. The Plaintiff-Company, having failed to prove the
positive act of theft by adducing cogent evidence, is now
attempting to demonstrate that the Defendants, without there
being any production, have sold finished products. In the
25
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
absence of any positive evidence from the Plaintiff’s side, this
Court cannot embark upon an audit of the business affairs of
the Defendant-Company nor can it presume theft on the
basis of mere surmises and conjectures.
17. The Defendant No.2 is the wife and the Defendant No.3
is the father-in-law of the Defendant No.1. The Defendant
Nos.2 and 3 are the promoters of the Defendant No.4
Company. The Defendant No.1 is stated to be associated with
the Defendant No.4 Company. However, he is neither a
Director nor a Shareholder therein. The Defendant Nos.2 to 4
have not actively participated in the present suit. Evidence
has been adduced by the Defendant No.1 on his behalf and
also on behalf of the other Defendants. From the prevailing
circumstances, an inference arises that the Defendant No.1 is
the person behind the promotion and incorporation of the
Defendant No.4 Company. The Learned Counsel for the
Defendants submits that even if it is presumed that the
Defendant No.1 has promoted the Defendant No.4 Company
by projecting the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 as promoters, such
an act on the part of the Defendant No.1 would not result in
26
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
any legal injury to the Plaintiff-Company. In support of his
submission, the Learned Counsel has relied upon the
following decisions:
1. Niranjan Shankar Golikari Vs. Century
Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd.,3
2. Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd.
Vs. Krishan Murgai 4
3. Percept D’ Mark (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Zaheer
Khan & Anr.5
18. In the first decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held
that negative covenants operative during the period of the
contract of an employment when the employee is bound to
serve his employer exclusively or generally not regarded as
restraint of trade and therefore, do not fall under Section 27
of the Contract Act. In the second decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, reiterated the decision of Hon’ble Culcutta
High Court in Brahmaputra Tea company Limited Vs.
Scarth6 and held that where the condition under which the
covenantee was partially restrained from competing after the
3 1967 SCC Online SC 72
4 (1981) 2 SCC 246
5 (2006) 4 SCC 227
6 ILR (1985) 11 CIL 545
27
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
term of his engagement with his former employer was held to
be be banned but the condition by which he bound himself
during the term of his agreement, not directly or indirectly, to
compete with his employer was held good. Thus, it is clear
that after termination of the contract the employee can
compete with his ex-employer. In the third decision, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that under Section 27 of the
Contract Act a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term
of the contract is void and not enforceable. In the present
case, the Defendant No.1 has ceased to be an employee of the
Plaintiff-Company. Even assuming for the sake of argument
that he has promoted the Defendant No.4 Company through
the Defendant Nos.2 and 3, the covenant of non-compete
contained in the Employment Agreement would not come into
operation. It is a well settled principle of law that a person
who seeks compensation for breach of contract is required to
establish not only the civil wrong i.e., the breach committed
by the defendant, but also the actual loss or damage suffered
by him in terms of money. In the case of Kailash Nath
Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority,7 the Hon’ble
7 (2015) 4 SCC 136
28
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 74 of the Contract
Act, has held that compensation is payable for breach of
contract only where damage or loss is caused by such
breach. In the present case, absolutely there is no proof of
the alleged breach by the Defendant No.1 of the Employment
Agreement. The Plaintiff-Company has also failed to establish
that it has suffered loss by the alleged breach.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the material
placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the Plaintiff-Company has failed to establish any breach of
confidentiality, misappropriation of trade secrets, or theft
against the Defendant No.1. The raw materials being
admittedly available in the open market, the information
regarding suppliers cannot be treated as confidential or
proprietary. Further, the alleged act of theft has not been
substantiated by any cogent and positive evidence in the form
of ledgers or other records which were mandatorily required
to be maintained and produced. With respect to the covenant
of non-compete, the Defendant No.1 having ceased to be an
employee, and the Plaintiff-Company having failed to prove
29
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
either the breach or the resultant loss in terms of money, no
liability can be fastened on the Defendants in terms of
Section 74 of the Contract Act as enunciated in Kailash
Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority (Supra).
Thus, the Plaintiff-Company has not made out a case for
grant of any relief. Accordingly, the suit of the Plaintiff-
Company is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Issue No.5:-
20. In view of the findings on aforesaid issues, the court
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed
with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
The office is hereby directed to send a soft
copy of this judgment to the parties to the
proceedings to their respective e-mail IDs as
required under Order XX Rule 1 of CPC and as
amended under section 16 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015.
[Dictated to the Adalat AI Dictaphone Software, edited by stenographer, corrected and
signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, on this the 18th day of July, 2026]
Digitally signed by
JITHENDRANATH S
JITHENDRANATH CHELUR
S CHELUR Date: 2026.07.18 17:41:18
+0530(JITHENDRANATH C.S.)
LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
30
Com.OS.No.1073/2022
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1 M.Harish
List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 original Board Resolution dated 08.01.2024 as
Ex.P.2 Copy of the Certificate of Fresh Incorporation
Ex.P.3 Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation
Ex.P.4 Certificate of Registration of Alteration of
Objects
Ex.P.5 Copy of the Articles of Association
Ex.P.6 Copy of the Offer Letter
Ex.P.7 Copy of the Trainee Supervisor Training Letter
dated 02.11.2015
Ex.P.8 Copy of the Appointment Letter dated
05.11.2018
Ex.P.9 Copy of the Confirmation Letter dated
01.05.2017 confirming the appointment of the
Defendant No.1 as Supervisor
Ex.P.10 Copy of the Promotion Letter dated
01.04.2018 promoting the Defendant No.1 as
Engineer
Ex.P.11 Copy of the Employment Agreement and Code
of Conduct dated 01.04.2018 executed by the
Defendant No.1
Ex.P.12 Copy of the Promotion Letter dated
01.10.2020 promoting the Defendant No.1 to
the post of Manager
Ex.P.13 Copy of the Employment Agreement and Code
of Conduct dated 01.10.2020
Ex.P.14 Copy of the Resignation Letter dated
12.03.2022 tendered by the Defendant No.1
Ex.P.15 Statement showing transfer of materials from
Unit No.2 to Unit No.3
Ex.P.16 Copy of Delivery Challan bearing No.095
relating to transfer/delivery of materials
Ex.P.17 Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of
31
Com.OS.No.1073/2022‘Adity Composite Private Limited
Ex.P.18 Copy of the Memorandum of Association of
‘Adity Composite Private Limited’
Ex.P.19 Copy of the Articles of Association of ‘Adity
Composite Private Limited’
Ex.P.20 Copy of the Company Master Data of ‘Adity
Composite Private Limited’
Ex.P.21 Copy of the employee details/nominee details
of the Defendant No.1
Ex.P.22 Copy of the Complaint Letter dated
26.03.2022 lodged before Doddaballapura
Police Station seeking registration of FIR
against the Defendant No.1
Ex.P.23 Copy of the FIR dated 29.03.2022
Ex.P.24 Notice dated 09.12.2022 issued to Guru
Krupa Consultancy Service
Ex.P.25 Notice dated 09.12.2022 issued to Mukarji
Enterprises
Ex.P.26 Reply Notice dated 13.12.2022 issued by Guru
Krupa Consultancy along with email and
postal cover
Ex.P.27 Employment Application and Bio-data
submitted by the Defendant No.1
Ex.P.28 Certified online copy of the Order dated
19.04.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.1066/2022
Ex.P.29 Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872
Ex.P.30 & Postal Receipt
Ex.P.31List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
DW.1 Mr.Sanu S. Nath
List of documents marked on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Copy of the charge sheet filed in Doddaballapura
Police Station
Ex.D.1(a) Copy of the statement of accused Mr.Sanu S.
Nath in Crime No.68/2022
Ex.D.1(b) Copy of the statement of accused Mrs.Pompi Das
in Crime No.68/2022
32
Com.OS.No.1073/2022Ex.D.1(c) Copy of the statement of accused Mr.Montu Das
in Crime No.68/2022
Ex.D.2 Compliance affidavit filed by defendant No.1
Ex.D.3 Copy of the GSTR-3B statement for the month of
July 2021-2022Digitally signed by
JITHENDRANATH S
JITHENDRANATH CHELUR
S CHELUR Date: 2026.07.18 17:41:29
+0530(JITHENDRANATH C.S.)
LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
