- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.670 OF 2025 (INJ) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.677 OF 2025 (INJ) IN RFA NO.670/2025 BETWEEN: GIRMITI SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED NO.2/3, 1ST FLOOR KUNDALAHALLI GATE MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU - 560037 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD SRI. SURESH PATEL …APPELLANT (BY SRI.SREENATHA C.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.MANJUNATH D A S/O ANJAPPA L AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ACM BOYS HOSTEL MANUVANA VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU- 560 040 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DASARATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE IMARAKUNTE POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 563138 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.9532/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-06) AT BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.9532/2019 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-6) AT BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC. IN RFA NO.677/2025 BETWEEN: GIRMITI SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED NO.2/3, 1ST FLOOR KUNDALAHALLI GATE MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU - 560 037 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD SRI.SURESH PATEL ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.SREENATHA C.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 AND: SRI.MANJUNATH D A S/O ANJAPPA L AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ACM BOYS HOSTEL MANUVANA VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DASARATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE IMARAKUNTE POST SRINIVASAPURA TLAUK KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 563138 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.9532/2019 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and decree granted in O.S.No.9532/2019 and counter claim set up by the defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court in O.S.No.9532/2019. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiff–company has instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, who had applied for the post of Trainee Engineer in the plaintiff–company. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant, having applied for the said post, was interviewed on 30.09.2019 and was thereafter selected. Upon his selection, the defendant voluntarily executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement as well as a Training Bond, after having fully understood the terms and conditions stipulated therein. 4. The plaintiff asserts that the Training Bond was executed for a fixed term of four years. Upon accepting the offer of training, the defendant also submitted his original educational and other relevant documents to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 plaintiff–company. However, it is alleged that the defendant, without honouring the terms of the said Training Bond, failed to join the training and instead began demanding the return of the original documents submitted to the plaintiff. 5. It is the further assertion of the plaintiff–company that, in clear violation of the terms of the Training Bond, the defendant not only failed to report for training but also began exerting undue pressure on the plaintiff’s officials by involving a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), members of Rakshana Vedike, and even Police authorities. In view of such coercive tactics allegedly adopted by the defendant, the plaintiff–company was constrained to file the present suit seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the internal affairs of the company. 6. Upon receipt of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement, categorically - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 denying the allegations made in the plaint. He contended that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. In addition, the defendant filed a counter-claim seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to return all his original documents, and also sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the alleged harassment and inconvenience caused. 7. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. The plaintiff examined its Law Officer as P.W.1 and produced four documents, marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4. The defendant, in turn, examined himself as D.W.1 and produced ten documents, which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.10. 8. The Trial Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and evidence on record, particularly the terms set out in Ex.P.1 - the Training Bond held that the defendant, not having reported for training, could not be treated as an employee of the company. On this premise, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate its allegation of interference by the defendant in the internal affairs of the company. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 9. Having dismissed the suit, the Trial Court proceeded to consider the counter-claim and, while declining to grant the relief of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, allowed the prayer for mandatory injunction and directed the plaintiff–company to return all the original documents to the defendant. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.9532/2019, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in RFA No.677/2025. Simultaneously, the decree passed in favour of the defendant on the counter-claim is assailed in RFA No.670/2025. Since both appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being heard and disposed of together. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant–plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of Page No.7 is re-typed and re-placed vide Chamber Order dated 01.09.2025 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 appeal, vehemently contended that the defendant, having voluntarily signed the Training Bond, was legally bound to serve the company for a period of four years as stipulated under Clause 4 and Clause C of Ex.P.1. He further submitted that the defendant’s unilateral decision to abandon the training without notice amounted to a breach of contract, thereby entitling the plaintiff–company to enforce the bond and claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per its terms. 11. Referring to Ex.P.2, learned counsel for the plaintiff-company would contend that in view of the defendant's breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the Training Bond marked as Ex.P.1, the plaintiff- company was fully justified in withholding the original documents submitted by the defendant. It is submitted that the defendant failed to report for training despite having executed the bond, and therefore, the action of the plaintiff in retaining the original documents is neither arbitrary nor unlawful. In this background, it is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 vehemently contended that the counter-claim entertained by the Trial Court is legally unsustainable and suffers from procedural infirmities, warranting interference by this Court. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant, by placing reliance on Exs.P.1 and P.2, would submit that the defendant cannot be treated as an employee of the plaintiff-company, as he had not reported for training pursuant to the execution of the Training Bond. It is his submission that Clause 4 of Ex.P.1 cannot be enforced against the defendant, as the relationship of employer-employee never came into existence. Referring to Clause-C of the bond, it is argued that the defendant was merely a trainee and did not undergo training. Therefore, the plaintiff-company was not justified in withholding the defendant’s original documents, which has caused serious prejudice to his future academic and professional prospects. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks dismissal of both the appeals with exemplary costs. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 13. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record. Particular emphasis is placed on the contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2. The Court has meticulously examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the nature of the Training Bond, and the scope of the reliefs sought in the suit and counter-claim. 14. In light of the above, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed on the counter-claim directing the plaintiff-company to return the original documents to the defendant suffers from legal infirmity or perversity? (ii) Whether the plaintiff-company was entitled to maintain a bare suit for injunction and seek relief against the defendant in the absence of a concluded contract of employment? Findings on point Nos.1 and 2: 15. Before delving into the merits of the rival claims, it would be apposite for this Court to examine the relevant - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 clauses of the Training Bond and the surrounding circumstances under which the defendant deposited his original academic documents with the plaintiff-company. The interpretation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the Training Bond, particularly in the context of the defendant’s subsequent conduct in withdrawing from the training programme, forms the crux of the present dispute. These foundational facts, coupled with the parties respective obligations under the Bond, are crucial in determining the legality of the plaintiff’s action in retaining the documents and in assessing the maintainability of the suit as well as the counter-claim. 16. The core issue that falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff-company was justified in maintaining a suit for bare injunction against the defendant, particularly when it is an admitted fact on record that the defendant reported for training but discontinued the same on the very next day. As per the terms of the Training Bond, the training was scheduled to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 extend over a period of three to six months, during which time the defendant was expected to undergo structured orientation and hands-on learning. However, the abrupt withdrawal of the defendant from the training process raises the question of whether an employer-employee relationship was ever effectively established, and consequently, whether the plaintiff could have invoked the penal clauses of the Bond or enforced the same through a prohibitory injunction. 17. In this context, it becomes necessary for this Court to extract Clauses A to D of the Training Bond (Ex.P.1), which form the foundation of the obligations allegedly breached by the defendant. These clauses are reproduced as under: "A The Employee, as part of the consideration for the training efforts and costs involved, agreed to sign a training bond for not leaving the services of the Company for a minimum period of 4 (four) years from the date of his joining the services of the Company as a trainee. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 B. Company holds all the rights to terminate the employee forthwith with immediate effect from his/her service due to any policy violations, any actions which are against the company polices and procedures, poor performance, misconduct and disabilities etc, without any settlement and without assigning any reasons whatsoever. C. The term "Employee" referred in this document refers to the Trainee who is confirmed after three to six months trainee probation period and until that time as Trainee. D. All the terms in this training bond will be binding and over and above the terms mentioned in the employment offer letter once that is given on successful completion of 3 to 6 months trainee probation period from the date of joining, and for the duration of entire period of 4 (four) years since then." (Emphasis supplied by me) 18. This Court also deems it fit to extract Clause-4 of the Training Bond, which would be relevant and the same is extracted below. 4. In case, the Employee for any reasons leaves the services of the Company before the agreed period of four years, then he/she forthwith pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (INR FOUR LAKHS ONLY) or the CTC amount for next 1 year salary (whichever is higher) since the time when requesting for leaving the company - - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 being the indemnification of the cost of training to the Company. The said amount will vary on case to case based depending on the facts and circumstances of the each case and the company will determine the said amount. The Employee will not dispute the amount and shall pay the amount, before requesting the formal relieving order from the Company. Further, any external training cost borne by the company towards the Employee would be additional to the above amount and will also be considered to be recovered separately." (Emphasis supplied by me) 19. A plain reading of the above clauses, particularly Clause C, makes it abundantly clear that the status of “employee” would be conferred upon the trainee only upon successful completion of the stipulated probationary period of three to six months. Until such confirmation, the individual would continue to hold the status of a “Trainee” and would not be governed by the terms applicable to confirmed employees. Clause “D” further reinforces that the obligations arising out of the Training Bond would take full effect only after completion of the probationary training period and subsequent issuance of an employment - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 offer letter. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the defendant, after reporting for training, discontinued the same on the second day itself. As such, there was neither successful completion of training nor issuance of any employment offer letter, and thus, the question of enforcing the four-year service obligation, as contemplated under Clause A or Clause 4, does not arise. 20. To further appreciate the claim of the plaintiff- company in retaining the original documents of the defendant, this Court also considers it appropriate to extract Clause 4 of the Training Bond, which reads as under: "5. By this letter, I request the company to keep the same in safe custody on my behalf and the same may be returned back to me after the completion of the training bond period. The training bond period would commence upon completion of the training period and on my confirmation as an employee. The 4 year period would be calculated on the said basis." - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 21. Though Clause 5 of Ex.P.2 is not happily worded, a holistic reading of the said document makes it amply clear that the obligation of the defendant to remain in service for a period of four years arises only upon successful completion of the probationary training period and upon confirmation of his employment. The conditionality embedded in Clause 5 is unmistakable , the rights and obligations accruing to the company against the defendant are triggered only after he is formally absorbed as an employee. Until such confirmation, the defendant’s status is that of a Trainee, and he does not acquire any vested rights or bear any corresponding obligations of a confirmed employee. 22. A conjoint reading of Clauses A to C and Clause 4 of the Training Bond (Ex.P.1), when examined alongside Clause 5 of Ex.P.2, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the plaintiff-company was not justified in withholding the defendant’s original documents. The defendant had opted out of the training within two days of joining, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 thereby not completing the stipulated probationary period. In the absence of confirmation, the defendant remained a Trainee and did not fall within the purview of the indemnity provisions contemplated under Clause 4. Consequently, the plaintiff-company had no contractual or equitable right to retain the original documents of the defendant. 23. Upon a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings and evidence on record, this Court finds that the action initiated by the plaintiff-company against a young engineering graduate, who merely declined to continue training, is both ill-advised and inequitable. It is pertinent to note that despite the presence of Clause 4 in Ex.P.1, which provides for a monetary penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of premature departure by an employee, the plaintiff- company has not chosen to invoke the said clause. This omission is not inconsequential, it tacitly acknowledges that the defendant was never confirmed as an employee. The suit filed by the plaintiff is a bare suit for injunction, - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 wherein the allegation is limited to alleged interference by the defendant in the day-to-day affairs of the company. However, there is no supporting evidence to substantiate any such actionable interference. 24. The records disclose that the plaintiff-company withheld the original academic documents of the defendant. Understandably, this prompted the defendant to make repeated visits to the company, requesting the return of his documents. These visits, viewed in the proper context, cannot be construed as interference. The insistence on retrieval of one’s own documents cannot, in law or logic, amount to wrongful conduct or intrusion. 25. It is a settled principle that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish (i) lawful possession and (ii) unlawful interference. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff’s possession of its premises. However, the second requirement namely, interference is clearly absent. The - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any overt or covert act on the part of the defendant that constitutes obstruction, disruption, or interference with its peaceful possession or business operations. The grievance, if any, of the plaintiff is essentially rooted in the defendant’s demand for return of his documents, a request that cannot be stretched to constitute legal interference. 26. This Court is of the considered view that the mere insistence by the defendant for return of his original documents does not, by any stretch of legal interpretation, amount to interference. Therefore, the suit instituted by the plaintiff-company seeking a permanent injunction simplicitor is misconceived, legally untenable, and fundamentally flawed. It reflects a gross misuse of legal process, particularly in the absence of any enforceable employment relationship or breach of contractual obligations. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 27. Insofar as the counter-claim is concerned, it deserves to be allowed in its entirety. The plaintiff- company, having not accepted the defendant as a confirmed employee, and the defendant having admittedly not completed the probationary period, could not have invoked any of the clauses under Exs.P.1 or P.2. The withholding of original documents by the company for nearly six years, despite full knowledge that the defendant never entered into a binding employment contract, is not only legally indefensible but also morally unconscionable. The conduct of the plaintiff-company, in venturing into protracted litigation to unjustly retain the educational records of a young professional, warrants strong disapproval. Accordingly, both the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appeal arising there from are dismissed. Likewise, the appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the counter- claim also stands dismissed. The point Nos.1 and 2 for consideration as framed are answered in the Negative. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 28. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-company do not support the facts or legal issues in the present case and are thus inapplicable. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds no merit in either of the appeals preferred by the plaintiff–company. Both RFA No.670/2025 and RFA No. 677/ 2025 are accordingly dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.25,000/-, payable by the plaintiff–company to the defendant. (ii) Further, the plaintiff–company is directed to forthwith return all original documents received from the defendant at the time of execution of the Training Bond, without any further delay, and in Page No.21 is re-typed and re-placed vide Chamber Order dated 01.09.2025 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25214 RFA No. 670 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 677 of 2025 any event, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Registry to return the Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10