Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.499 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SIDDHARTH CHUGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SH. VIJAY KUMAR CHUGH, HAVING OFFICE AT FLASH CLOUD CONSULTING FLAT NO.703A, 7TH FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER, 6 NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 019 E-MAIL [email protected]. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PAVAN M., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RADHA R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed AND: by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF 1. ARRAY NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED KARNATAKA A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIQUBE SIGMA NO.3B, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560034. ALSO AT ARRAY NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED S2, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER -2- NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110019.
2. SHIBU PAUL
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. P.A. PAUL, HAVING OFFICE AT: ARRAY NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED INDIQUBE SIGMA NO.3B, 7TH C MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560034.
3. FLASH CLOUD CONSULTING,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS PRIMARY OFFICE AT: FLAT NO.703A, 7TH FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI - 110019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND C/R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 AND 4 IN OS.NO.7357/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-36, PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 AND 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7357/2023 being
aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.4 filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.7357/2023 on the file of XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru1 (CCH-36), thereby, granting an order of temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them directly or indirectly from communicating exchanging, publishing, distributing etc., to the general public or through print, electronic and social media about the alleged malpractice done by the plaintiffs. Also, it is ordered making it clear hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short -4- that the defendants are at liberty to approach the parent Array US Inc Company for an in house inquiry regarding the alleged corrupt trade practices.
3. The plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The Trial Court, after considering applications I.A.Nos.1 and 4 has granted an
order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants
directly or indirectly from communicating exchanging, publishing, distributing etc., to the general public or through print, electronic and social media about the alleged malpractice alleged to have been doing by defendants. Also, made an order by giving liberty to the defendants to approach the parent Array US Inc Company for in house inquiry regarding the alleged corrupt trade practices.
4. The Trial Court While passing an order of temporary injunction has made certain observations, which reads as under: -5-
”I feel that the first defendant by approaching the third parties such as Delotte and KPMG tried to incriminate the reputation of the plaintiff Company. At the same time, the first defendant is corrupt in both Array Us and its management asking for in house enquiry about the corrupt Trade Practices involved by the plaintiff No.2 and Manish Kumar Gautam, Kannika Gautam etc., the plaintiffs asking for restraint order restraining the defendants from publishing, distributing the defamatory information to third parties. Exchange of e-mails to the third parties either directly or indirectly impeach the reputation of the first plaintiff-Company.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
No.1 submitted that this observation made by the Trial Court while passing an order of temporary injunction certainly causes prejudice to plaintiff No.2 against defendant No.1, which may also influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit. Therefore, submitted that these observations are unnecessary.
6. Fundamentally, the suit is filed with pleadings
and counter-pleadings that the act of the defendants is amounting to defamation. Therefore, the suit is filed. Whether the defendants have committed act of defamation or not is the subject matter in the suit to be tired before -6- the Trial Court, but the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.1 is correct in his apprehension that the observations made by the Trial Court to some extent may influence the civil Court while deciding the suit against the defendants. Hence, there is a need to make clarification in this regard.
7. The Trial Court is not correct in making observations against the defendants as if the said suit is considered on its merits. If the Trial Court feels that an
order of temporary injunction is granted that could only
have been done without making observations against the defendants. Therefore, it is hereby clarified that whatever observations made by the Trial Court as stated above are unwarranted and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on its merits, then this would suffice to safeguard the interest of the defendants.
8. Also, it is submitted that the Trial Court by
order dated 15.11.2023 has given liberty to the
-7- defendants to initiate any legal proceedings in accordance with law and the order of temporary injunction will not come in the way of such action to be taken by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued with reference to Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963. It is made clear that this order by giving liberty to the defendants to initiate any legal proceedings in accordance with law includes the defendants to assist the investigating agency in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34