IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.403 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . PAUL TECHNO PROCESS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.109, MAGNOLIA MAKS BLOSSOM 11TH CROSS, 8TH A MAIN ANANTHANAGAR, HUSKUR GATE ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 2 . MR. ANUP D SILVA DIRECTOR OF CAVEAT PETITIONER No.1 S/O DOLPHY D'SILVA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT. PRESTIGE SUNRISE PARK BIRCHWOOD TOWER-5, 6TH FLOOR NEOTOWN ROAD, GOLLAHALLI ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1 BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 3 . MR. RAMESH HANDANAHALLI DODDEGOWDA No.185, OMKAR NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR 6TH CROSS, 2ND B MAIN VINAYAKA LAYOUT - 2 NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 072 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 4 . MR. SANATH LEWIS RESIDING AT F-13 VASANTHA TAP PARK, 1ST FLOOR J.P. NAGAR 8TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 076 5 . MR. AMBARISH H.V. RESIDING AT No.10 CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA BANAHALLY ROAD CHANDAPURA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 099 KARNATAKA, INDIA ALSO AT: 20/27, SRI KRISHNA NILAYAM 2ND CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR MADIWALA NEAR HOLY CROSS HALL, TAVAREKERE RAMAPPA LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560029 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 6 . MR. SANDEEP DEVENDRAPPA RESIDING AT No.10, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD CHANNARAYASWAMY LAYOUT CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU RURAL-13 KARNATAKA-560 090 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 7 . MR. ALDRIN CARDOZA RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR KHUSHI NUTRITION CLUB No.119, 6TH MAIN ROAD - 3 NEELADRI INVESTMENT LAYOUT NEAR DURGA BAKERY BASAPURA ROAD DODDATHOGUR ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 8 . MR. REYNOL DOMINIC RESIDING AT No.62 7TH CROSS ROAD KUNDANHALLI COLONY BROOKFIELD, BENGALURU-560 037 KARNATAKA-INDIA ALSO AT: No.20/27 SRI KRISHNA NILAYAM 2ND CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR MADIWALA NEAR HOLY CROSS HALL TAVAREKERE, RAMAPPA LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 029 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 9 . MS. SHRUTHI P.M. RESIDING AT No.33/3, 4TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, NEAR BISHOP COTTON SCHOOL SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 068 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 10 . MS. EDNA MELONY QUADRAS DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT No.1 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. PRESTIGE SUNRISE PARK BIRCHWOOD TOWER-5, 6TH FLOOR NEOTOWN ROAD, GOLLAHALLI ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1 BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER - 4 MR. SANATH LEWIS 11 . MR. EDWARD QUADRAS DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT No.1 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT No.4-265, N.J.C. ROAD NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL BARKUR HANEHALLI, BARKUR UDUPI-576 210 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS 12 . MR. HILARY SIMON D'SOUZA DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT No.1 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT No.109, MAGNOLIA MAKS BLOSSOM 11TH CROSS, 8TH "A" MAIN ANANTHA NAGAR, HUSKAR GATE ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. SANATH LEWIS ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHENNAKESHAVA B.K., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. HANSA B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . FRESCO NZ (INDIA) PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO MR. KENNETH ARMSTRONG HETHERINGTON 726, 6TH B CROSS 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA-560 034 2 . FRESCO NZ LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAYMOND LESLIE ALFRED RAWLINGS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 61, BEN LEMOND CRESCENT PAKURANGA AUCKLAND, 2010 - 5 NEW ZEALAND ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AMEET DATTA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM. O.S. No.718/2023 ON THE FILE OF LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH No.85) AT BENGALURU, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2024 ALLOWING IAs No.I TO III FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND REJECTING IA No.VI FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND ALLOW IA No.VI FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 4 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 6 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Commercial Appeal is directed against an orders on I.As.No.I to III and VI dated 12.07.2024 passed by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-85) (Commercial Court), Bengaluru in Com O.S.No.718/2023, by which an interim order granting a Temporary Injunction has been extended till disposal of the suit. 2. We have heard Shri. Chennakeshava B.K, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Ameet Datta, learned advocate appearing for caveator/respondent No.1. 3. The suit was filed seeking the following substantial reliefs:- "A. Of Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants (including their members, directors, partners, employees, affiliates, representatives, agents and any other persons acting under or through them) from directly or indirectly disseminating, disclosing, publishing, misappropriating, misusing or exploiting, either commercially or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever, the Plaintiff's confidential and - 7 proprietary information and documents (defined above as FCD); B. Of Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants (including their members, directors, partners, employees, affiliates, representatives, agents and any other persons acting under or through them) from directly or indirectly copying, reproducing, storing in physical of electronic form, communicating to the public, adapting, translating the Plaintiffs’ literary works thereby amounting to an infringement of the copyright of the Plaintiffs as subsisting in their literary works. C. Of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants (including their members, directors, partners, employees, affiliates, representatives, agents and any other persons acting under or through them) from releasing, manufacturing, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in any manner or way with any products, equipment or services which uses wholly or partially any of the Plaintiff's FCD in any manner whatsoever; D. Of Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants (including their members, directors, partners, employees, affiliates, representatives, agents and any other persons acting under or through them) to return any and all FCD of the Plaintiffs (including all copies thereof) and currently in the possession of the Defendants, whether stored in physical and/or electronic form (in the form of any external media such as HDDs, Hard Drives/Pen Drives/CDs, Mobile Phone (s) etc.) or any other electronic equipment; E. Of Declaration, declaring the Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 to be in breach of their respective Employment Agreements with Plaintiff No.1; - 8 F. Of Delivery up to the Plaintiffs, of all literary works (including all copies thereof), either in physical or electronic form (in the form of any external media such as HDDs, Hard Drives/Pen Drives/CDs, Mobile Phone (s) etc.) or any other electronic equipment used by the Defendants; containing the Plaintiffs’ literary works in which the Plaintiff has copyright under Section 58 of the Copyright Act, 957; G. Of rendition of accounts of profit illegally earned by the Defendants on account of their misappropriate, dissemination, misappropriation and misuse of the Plaintiffs’ FCD, including conversion damages, which are presently indeterminate, and a decree for the amount so ascertained be passed in favor of the Plaintiffs; H. Of Damages, directing the Defendant Nos. 1 to 12 to pay a sum of INR 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Only), jointly and severally as damages owed to the Plaintiffs; I. Award costs of the suit." 4. I.A.No.I was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants and anybody claiming or acting through them claiming disseminating, disclosing, publishing, misappropriating, misusing or exploiting either commercially or other wise in any manner, the plaintiffs Fresco Confidential Documents (FCD), pending disposal of the suit. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction had been granted on 21.06.2023. - 9 I.A.No.II was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs praying to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order injuncting and restraining the defendants and anybody claiming or acting through them from directly or indirectly, copying, reproducing, storing in physical or electronic form, communicating to the public, adapting, translating the plaintiff's literary works thereby amounting to an infringement of the copyright of the plaintiffs as subsisting in their literary works pending disposal of the application. I.A.No.III was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs praying to pass an ex-parte ad interim injunction order injuncting and restraining the defendants and anybody claiming or acting through them from releasing, manufacturing, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in any manner or way with any products, equipment or services which uses wholly or partially any of the plaintiff's FCD in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the application. - 10 IA.No.VI was filed by the learned counsel for the defendants praying to vacate the ad-interim order of injunction granted. 5. The plaintiffs had relied on the non-disclosure statements as contained in the contract between the parties. Common objections had been filed to the applications preferred by the plaintiffs by the defendants stating that none of the goods or services or alleged information/documents of the plaintiffs qualify to be confidential and proprietary. It was therefore contended that the plaintiffs have no exclusive right over the designs or the information/documents and that an interim order of injunction as sought for cannot be granted. The Interlocutory Applications were heard together and the contentions raised on either side were considered. After considering the terms of the contract entered into between the parties as well as the evidence and the materials placed on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The interim injunction granted was therefore - 11 made absolute and the applications preferred by the defendants were dismissed. 6. The allegation before the Commercial Court was that defendants No.2 to 9 in collusion with defendants No.10 to 12 had shared the confidential information which was available to them in their capacity as employees or Directors of the plaintiffs to other entities including MTR. The defendants denied the allegation contending that the designs and technical details of the chilli cleaning machines were available online and hence there was no question of information leakage. 7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, documents and materials on record as well as statement of objections filed by either side held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the defendants have failed to show valid grounds to vacate the interim injunction. It was further held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and greater hardship would be caused to them if the injunction was vacated. - 12 8. It is a trite law that an exercise of discretion by the Court at the first instance will not be interfered with by the Appellate Court unless it can be clearly shown that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant of interlocutory injunctions. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others reported in (2024) 11 SCC 351, has reiterated this aspect with reference to the substantial precedent law on the point. 10. Though the learned counsel for the appellants raises several factual aspects in this appeal, we are of the opinion that since the ad-interim order is granted by the Court, pending the suit, considering the balance of convenience as also the comparative hardship to the parties, no ground has been made out for interference in the exercise of discretion by the Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 13 11. In the above view of the matter, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that we have made no comments on the merits of the dispute between the parties which shall be decided in the suit. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*