Draft Suit For Injunction

IN THE COURT OF____________, ____________
COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS COMM No. of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

ABC (P) Limited …Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. X & Ors …Defendant
MEMO OF PARTIES.
1. ABC P. Limited
(Office Address) Plaintiff
VERSUS
2. Mr. X
(Residential Address) Defendant No. 1
3. EGF P. Ltd.
(Office Address) Defendant No. 2
IN THE COURT OF____________, ____________
COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS COMM No. of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

ABC (P) Limited …Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. X & Ors …Defendant
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
Most respectfully showeth:
1. Plaintiff is preferring the present suit for damages and mandatory

injunction in respect of trade secrets and confidential information
imparted by a former employee of the Plaintiff Company being
Defendant No.1.
2. Plaintiff is an Indian Company incorporated under the Companies Act

which is engaged in manufacturing and sale of electric scooters.
3. Defendant No. 1 is an Ex employee of the Plaintiff Company who had

been employed by the Plaintiff Company until 31.12.2021.
4. Defendant No. 2 is an Indian Company incorporated under the

Companies Act which is also engaged in manufacturing and sale of
electric scooters and is a competitor of the Plaintiff No. 1 Company.
5. Defendant No. 1 joined the Plaintiff company on 01.03.2021 as an
Area Sales Manager and had the responsibility of Managing
salesmen, keeping records along with making and following up new
leads. Soon after the Defendant No. 1 joined the plaintiff Company,
he started showing reckless behaviour, not attending the office on
time, misbehaving with clients etc.
6. That pursuant thereto, the Defendant No. 1 was asked to resign from
the Plaintiff Company. Subsequently the Defendant No. 1 gave his
resignation on 01.12.2021 giving one month’s notice and stating that
31.12.2021 would be his last working day. But to the surprise of the
Plaintiff Company, the Defendant No. 1 stopped attending the office
of the Plaintiff Company from 10.12.2021. the Plaintiff Company
tried contacting Defendant No. 1 but he had changed his number and
email address.
7. That Defendant No. 1 had been an employee of the Plaintiff Company

since 01.03.2021 and had been drawing a salary which is evident
from the bank statements of the Plaintiff Company which clearly
show the salary amount being credited towards Defendant No. 1 and
debited from Plaintiff Company’s account including all statutory
compliances related to EPF and gratuity, etc.
8. That somewhere around February 2022, The Defendant No. 1 joined

the Defendant No. 2 Company who Defendant No. 1 knew for a fact
to be a competitor of the Plaintiff Company. In the same month of
Defendant No. 1 joining the Defendant No. 2 Company, the
Defendant No. 2 Company started poaching the agents and
distributors of the Plaintiff Company.
9. It is submitted that employees the HR code of conduct is available at
a conspicuous place in the office which clearly states that no
employee is allowed to disclose in clients/distributors and employees
and agents associated with the company distributors and disclose
confidential information to any other company under any
circumstance.
10. The defendant had been a pivotal employee exposed to information

which would enable a competitor to better compete in the electric
scooter market. The Defendant No. 1 has unlawfully taken and/or
used confidential data such as customer/client lists from the Plaintiff
Company and has passed that information onto a competitor i.e
Defendant No. 2 Company. It is also submitted that this is also a
circumstance where the ex-employee i.e Defendant No. 1 was a senior
employee and that there are restrictive covenants in the oral
agreement, where the employee might be on Garden leave, but the
employee is unlawfully seeking to poach clients/agents or
distributors.
11. These poaching instances have caused an extreme impact to the

business of Plaintiff No. 1 Company which is listed in detail in the
table given below:
(table including the loss caused to the business due to poaching of

the distributors/agents by Defendant No. 2 company)
12. That in case the present application is not allowed then the grave
prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is humbly
requested before this Hon’ble Court to grant the relief of damages to
the tune of _________ along with interest and mandatory injunction
to restrict the Defendant No. 2 Company from poaching any more
agents/distributors from the Plaintiff No. 1 Company.
13. That the balance of convenience also lies in the favour of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendants.
14. That there are adequate grounds for grant of ad interim mandatory
injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The present application is being
bona fide and in the interest of justice.
15. Grave irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff which can not
be compensated only in terms of money.
PRAYER
In view of the facts of the circumstances stated above this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
a) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs. ____ towards damages.
b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 2
and in favour of the Plaintiff restrain from poaching any more any
more agents/distributors from the Plaintiff No. 1 Company.
c) Award costs of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff;
d) Any other relief (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and
proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
PLAINTIFF

Draft Suit For Injunction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Suit For Injunction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF____________, ____________

COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

Most respectfully showeth:

1. Plaintiff is preferring the present suit for damages and mandatory

2. Plaintiff is an Indian Company incorporated under the Companies Act

3. Defendant No. 1 is an Ex employee of the Plaintiff Company who had

4. Defendant No. 2 is an Indian Company incorporated under the

7. That Defendant No. 1 had been an employee of the Plaintiff Company

8. That somewhere around February 2022, The Defendant No. 1 joined

10. The defendant had been a pivotal employee exposed to information

11. These poaching instances have caused an extreme impact to the

(table including the loss caused to the business due to poaching of

may be pleased to:

a) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs. ____ towards damages.

b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 2

more agents/distributors from the Plaintiff No. 1 Company.

c) Award costs of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff;

proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.

You might also like

IN THE COURT OF,