TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for want of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the interim injunction against the defendants should be continued on the basis of prima facie infringement and the Court's power to pierce the corporate veil. (iii) Whether the defendant's application seeking restraint on the plaintiff's communications to the defendants' customers and a public apology was maintainable and liable to be allowed.
Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for want of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: At the stage of considering rejection of plaint, only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with it are relevant. The plaint asserted ownership of copyright in the software, pleaded earlier injunctions against the same line of conduct, and alleged that the defendants were acting in breach of those restraints. The absence of all supporting documents at that stage did not justify rejection when the pleaded facts disclosed a triable claim.
Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected, and the application was dismissed.
Issue (ii): Whether the interim injunction against the defendants should be continued on the basis of prima facie infringement and the Court's power to pierce the corporate veil.
Analysis: The agreement placed a confidentiality and non-compete restraint on the defendants, and earlier orders had already restrained the same individual from using the plaintiff's software. The formation of a new company in which the wife of the concerned individual held the controlling shareholding, coupled with the continuing involvement of that individual, indicated a prima facie attempt to circumvent prior judicial orders. In such a situation, the separate legal personality of the company could be disregarded for the limited purpose of preventing abuse of the corporate form.
Conclusion: The interim injunction was made absolute till disposal of the suit.
Issue (iii): Whether the defendant's application seeking restraint on the plaintiff's communications to the defendants' customers and a public apology was maintainable and liable to be allowed.
Analysis: The defendant sought broad restraint and affirmative relief, but the record showed that the plaintiff had only communicated the subsisting injunction to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In view of that admission, the Court confined the plaintiff's conduct to communication of the injunction order alone and declined any wider adverse communication direction.
Conclusion: The application was not allowed in the broader terms sought, and only a limited communication direction was issued.
Final Conclusion: The Court refused to reject the plaint, sustained the interim restraint against the defendants, and declined the defendants' broader request for injunctive and apology-related relief, while issuing a narrow direction regulating the plaintiff's communications.
Ratio Decidendi: On an application for rejection of plaint, the Court examines only the plaint averments and accompanying documents, and where a company is prima facie used to evade existing judicial restraints, the corporate veil may be lifted to prevent abuse of process.
TaxTMI 
