Perpetuuiti Technosoft Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanovi Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1183511
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMay-12-2016
Case NumberCS(OS) No. 1618 of 2013
JudgeValmiki J. Mehta
AppellantPerpetuuiti Technosoft Service Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentSanovi Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Excerpt:
valmiki j. mehta, j. i.a. no. 2261/2015 exemption, as prayed for, is allowed subject to all just exceptions. the application stands disposed of. i.a. no. 2260/2015 plaintiff by this application under order 39, rule 2a cpc alleges violation by the defendants of the directions contained in paragraph 22 of the order passed by the learned single judge of this court dated 24.11.2014. the said paragraph 22 reads as under: "22. in cs (os) 1076/2011, vide order dated 9th october, 2014, perpetuuiti techno-soft service private limited (plaintiff herein) was impleaded as defendant no. 4. the learned counsel for the defendant herein pressed that the interim order already passed on 6th may, 2011 against the defendants no. 1 to 3 therein may also continue against the newly impleaded defendant no. 4(plaintiff herein). subsequently, i.a. no. 20431/2014 under order 39 r.1 and 2 cpc was filed by the defendant (plaintiff therein) with a prayer that the interim order already passed on 6th may, 2011 and clarification made on 2nd june, 2011 be extended to the newly impleaded defendant no. 4. however, it was opposed on behalf of defendant no. 4 that the in the plaint available on record therein, there are no allegations against defendant no.4. learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that in view of the order passed by the court on 9th october, 2014, the plaintiff intends to file the amended plaint containing the allegations against defendant no. 4. accordingly, the said application is pending for the time being and counsel for the plaintiff agreed to the suggestion that at this stage by disposing of interim application. thus, without expressing any opinion and deciding the disputes in this regard, the following directions are passed:- (i) both the parties from today onwards shall not communicate the personal view with the communication except the orders passed by this court. (ii) learned counsel for the defendants states that the defendant no.1 shall send all the orders passed by the court to those parties to whom the said defendant earlier issued the communications and serve the copy of the same to the counsel for the plaintiff within two weeks. the affidavit of compliance would be filed within four weeks." 2. as per the present application, two grounds are stated as being the violations of the order dated 24.11.2014. first, is that when an employee of the defendants, namely, sh. amarjeet gill sent an e-mail on 12.1.2015, this e-mail amounts to contempt because it uses an expression "as per our discussion". contempt is alleged to exist on account of the fact that by paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014, the orders passed by this court were to be sent without the personal view of the author of the letter forwarding the orders and "as per our discussion", as per the plaintiff amounts to adding a personal view. the second ground urged is that defendants have failed to file the affidavit in terms of the second direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2014 and thus defendants have committed contempt. 3. in my opinion the application under consideration is hopelessly misconceived and i do not find from the averments made and the documents filed that there is any contempt of the defendants of the directions contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014. 4. simply writing "as per our discussion", in my opinion, cannot be read to mean that any personal view is expressed as regards the merits of the orders or merits of the case, and which are not found in the e-mail dated 12.1.2015 of sh. amarjeet gill. the first ground alleged of violation of the order dated 24.11.2014 is, therefore, misconceived and rejected. 5. so far as the second ground is concerned, counsel for the defendants has drawn the attention of this court to the fact that defendants have complied with the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014 and an affidavit has been filed by the defendants of compliance on 18.12.2014. 6. i note that this affidavit dated 18.12.2014 has been filed and this affidavit states that the necessary communications have been sent to the parties to whom communications were issued earlier by the defendants. learned counsel for the defendants also points out that whatever communications were sent to the clients of the defendants pursuant to the directions in the order dated 24.11.2014 were also marked to the advocate of the plaintiff, and it is therefore argued that plaintiff has been duly informed with regard to the communication of the orders and thus due compliance of the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014. 7. in my opinion, filing of the affidavit of compliance on 18.12.2014 and marking of the communications sent after 24.11.2014 on behalf of the defendants to counsel for the plaintiff is sufficient compliance of the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014 and it cannot be argued by the plaintiff that there is any violation by the defendants of the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014. 8. lastly, learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that defendants have various other clients to whom earlier communications were addressed and to whom also orders of this court were to be sent as per the second direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2014, and that plaintiff be given an opportunity to give details of such clients, but this prayer, in the opinion of this court, is misconceived for the reason that if the plaintiff comes to know that the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of the defendant on 18.12.2014 is not sufficient because there allegedly were other clients to whom also correspondence was earlier addressed by the defendants, then obviously plaintiff can at that stage file appropriate application alleging violation of direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2014 on account of alleged other clients of defendants not being informed. 9. in view of the above, the application is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. cs(os) 1618/2013 10. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:- 1. whether the defendants' action constitutes tortious inference in the business of the plaintiff through misrepresentation of facts? opp 2. whether the defendants have acted to defame and have resorted to unethical and illegal means to damage the plaintiff's business interest? opp 3. whether the plaintiff has been put to injury and is entitled to damages on account of the acts of the defendants? opp 4. whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, and if so of what amount? opp 5. relief. 10. parties will file their list of witnesses within six weeks. 11. list before the joint registrar for fixing dates of trial on 4th august, 2016.
Judgment:

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

I.A. No. 2261/2015

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 2260/2015

Plaintiff by this application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC alleges violation by the defendants of the directions contained in paragraph 22 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.11.2014. The said paragraph 22 reads as under:

"22. In CS (OS) 1076/2011, vide order dated 9th October, 2014, Perpetuuiti Techno-soft Service Private Limited (plaintiff herein) was impleaded as defendant No. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant herein pressed that the interim order already passed on 6th May, 2011 against the defendants No. 1 to 3 therein may also continue against the newly impleaded defendant No. 4(plaintiff herein). Subsequently, I.A. No. 20431/2014 under Order 39 R.1 and 2 CPC was filed by the defendant (plaintiff therein) with a prayer that the interim order already passed on 6th May, 2011 and clarification made on 2nd June, 2011 be extended to the newly impleaded defendant No. 4. However, it was opposed on behalf of defendant No. 4 that the in the plaint available on record therein, there are no allegations against defendant No.4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that in view of the order passed by the Court on 9th October, 2014, the plaintiff intends to file the amended plaint containing the allegations against defendant No. 4. Accordingly, the said application is pending for the time being and counsel for the plaintiff agreed to the suggestion that at this stage by disposing of interim application. Thus, without expressing any opinion and deciding the disputes in this regard, the following directions are passed:-

(i) Both the parties from today onwards shall not communicate the personal view with the communication except the orders passed by this Court.

(ii) Learned counsel for the defendants states that the defendant No.1 shall send all the orders passed by the Court to those parties to whom the said defendant earlier issued the communications and serve the copy of the same to the counsel for the plaintiff within two weeks. The affidavit of compliance would be filed within four weeks."

2. As per the present application, two grounds are stated as being the violations of the order dated 24.11.2014. First, is that when an employee of the defendants, namely, Sh. Amarjeet Gill sent an e-mail on 12.1.2015, this e-mail amounts to contempt because it uses an expression "as per our discussion". Contempt is alleged to exist on account of the fact that by paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014, the orders passed by this Court were to be sent without the personal view of the author of the letter forwarding the orders and "as per our discussion", as per the plaintiff amounts to adding a personal view. The second ground urged is that defendants have failed to file the affidavit in terms of the second direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2014 and thus defendants have committed contempt.

3. In my opinion the application under consideration is hopelessly misconceived and I do not find from the averments made and the documents filed that there is any contempt of the defendants of the directions contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014.

4. Simply writing "as per our discussion", in my opinion, cannot be read to mean that any personal view is expressed as regards the merits of the orders or merits of the case, and which are not found in the e-mail dated 12.1.2015 of Sh. Amarjeet Gill. The first ground alleged of violation of the order dated 24.11.2014 is, therefore, misconceived and rejected.

5. So far as the second ground is concerned, counsel for the defendants has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that defendants have complied with the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014 and an affidavit has been filed by the defendants of compliance on 18.12.2014.

6. I note that this affidavit dated 18.12.2014 has been filed and this affidavit states that the necessary communications have been sent to the parties to whom communications were issued earlier by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also points out that whatever communications were sent to the clients of the defendants pursuant to the directions in the order dated 24.11.2014 were also marked to the advocate of the plaintiff, and it is therefore argued that plaintiff has been duly informed with regard to the communication of the orders and thus due compliance of the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014.

7. In my opinion, filing of the affidavit of compliance on 18.12.2014 and marking of the communications sent after 24.11.2014 on behalf of the defendants to counsel for the plaintiff is sufficient compliance of the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014 and it cannot be argued by the plaintiff that there is any violation by the defendants of the second direction contained in paragraph 22 of the order dated 24.11.2014.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that defendants have various other clients to whom earlier communications were addressed and to whom also orders of this Court were to be sent as per the second direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2014, and that plaintiff be given an opportunity to give details of such clients, but this prayer, in the opinion of this Court, is misconceived for the reason that if the plaintiff comes to know that the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of the defendant on 18.12.2014 is not sufficient because there allegedly were other clients to whom also correspondence was earlier addressed by the defendants, then obviously plaintiff can at that stage file appropriate application alleging violation of direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2014 on account of alleged other clients of defendants not being informed.

9. In view of the above, the application is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

CS(OS) 1618/2013

10. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the defendants' action constitutes tortious inference in the business of the plaintiff through misrepresentation of facts? OPP

2. Whether the defendants have acted to defame and have resorted to unethical and illegal means to damage the plaintiff's business interest? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has been put to injury and is entitled to damages on account of the acts of the defendants? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, and if so of what amount? OPP

5. Relief.

10. Parties will file their list of witnesses within six weeks.

11. List before the Joint Registrar for fixing dates of trial on 4th August, 2016.