Summary
The Karnataka High Court in M/s. Bizotico v. Mohammed Sajjad examined a dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information and defamation by former employees. The court restrained the defendants from using Bizotico’s confidential data and soliciting business contacts related to the brands handled by the plaintiff until the suit is resolved. However, the court found insufficient evidence to support the defamation claim and declined to restrict the defendants' use of personal email, given their undertaking. The appeal was ultimately disposed of with all related interim applications closed. This decision highlights the court’s balanced approach to protecting business interests while safeguarding employee rights.
In the case of “M/s. Bizotico v. Mohammed Sajjad”, the Karnataka High Court dealt with an appeal arising from a dispute involving the alleged misuse of confidential information and defamation. MIS. Bizotico, a registered partnership firm and a major distributor of luxury watches in India, filed a suit against its former employees, Mohammed Sajjad and others, after they resigned and joined another company. The plaintiff sought multiple injunctions to prevent the defendants from using its confidential data, soliciting its clients, and defaming the company.
The trial court dismissed the interim applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, leading to this appeal. The plaintiff argued that the defendants, who held key positions within the company, had access to sensitive information that could be misused to harm its business interests. The defendants, however, contended that they were not dealing with the same brands as M/s. Bizotico and had already submitted undertakings not to use the plaintiff’s confidential information.
The High Court, after hearing both parties, issued directions restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s confidential data and soliciting business contacts related to the brands handled by the plaintiff until the suit’s disposal. But, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss the defamation claim due to lack of evidence. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to restrict the use of the defendants’ personal email, noting that the defendants had already undertaken not to use any of the plaintiff’s information.
The appeal was thus disposed of, with all interim applications closed.
Citation: M/s. Bizotico v. Mohammed Sajjad, M.F.A. No. 4462 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court, July 29, 2024). Available at:http://indiankanoon.org/doc/52398081/, Visited on: 26/08/2024.