TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ink beverages, under the trade mark "Pepsi" all over the world including India. For the sake of convenience the plaintiffs are jointly referred as" Pepsi" and the defendants as "Coke" 4. It is alleged that main competitor of Pepsi in the soft drink beverage business in Coke. In India also, the main business rivals of the plaintiffs are the defendants, Coke. It is incorporated in the plaint that the soft drink business worldwide is extremely competitive and the business rivalry between Pepsi and Coke is fairly intense all over. Both the group of companies spend a large amount of money time and efforts to protect and develop their respective business interests. In India also, both Pepsi and Coke have spent a considerable amount of money on advertising and marketing of their products. 5. It is incorporated in the plaint that till recently these actions of aggressive sales, promotion and advertising were within the legal parameters and within acceptable worldwide and Indian marketing practices. However, over the past six months the plaintiffs have found that the defendants have been resorting not only to unethical business practices, but the defendants' actions in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioned that Pepsi's success has been owing to a strong professional, well trained and motivated technical, finance, production and sales team that Pepsi has put together at its various locations all over India. It is alleged that in furtherance to the conspiracy, Coke started approaching the employees of Pepsi with inducements to terminate their existing contracts with Pepsi and enter into an employment contract with Coke. It is further mentioned that in certain cases Coke has successfully approached and induced some of Pepsi's employees into illegally terminating their existing contracts and entering into new employment contracts with coke. It is also incorporated in the plaint that initially these approaches were sporadic but over the last six months, it is clear that Coke has changed its strategy and has now decided to consciously target and approach the key employees of Pepsi at various locations in India. In the plaint, details of the six officials of Pepsi have been given, who were successfully approached by Coke and induced into terminating their employment contracts and confidentiality undertakings with Pepsi. 9. It is incorporated in the plaint that in or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....everage industry depends heavily on a strong, well trained and motivated sales team, because the nature of business requires a constant interaction between the manufacturer and trade, distributors and retail outlets. The trade has to be regularly serviced to ensure adequate supplies of the products and to maintain market share. This onerous responsibility lies with the sales team. Accordingly, in the event Pepsi was to lose the entire sales team as was sought to be achieved by Coke in Kanpur, the loss and damage would be much greater than the mere loss of money spent on training of the sales personnel. The loss would be in terms of loss of time involved in replacing the sales team and consequent loss of business in the meanwhile. 15. It is also alleged that Goa Bottling Private Ltd. was earlier the franchisee bottlers of Coke with manufacturing facilities located in Goa and was servicing the Goa territory. The existing franchise contract between Goa Bottling Company and Coke terminated in accordance with the terms thereof on 22.11.1997. Upon the termination of the existing contract with Coke, Goa Bottling Company commenced production and distribution of Pepsi with effect f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nate his exclusive contract with Pepsi and to Start working with Coke. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid sequence of events Pepsi tried to make out a case against Coke and submitted that the actions of Coke amounted to tortious interference in the business of Pepsi. Pepsi had also mentioned that plaintiff No.3 had an agreement with one Shrinathji Sales for distribution of Pepsi products in various long distance trains, emanating out of Ahmedabad Railway station. It is alleged that in March 1998, the officials of Coke, approached the said distribution partner of Pepsi and offered to pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs plus for the fulfillment of any other requirements of the distribution partner in consideration of the said distribution partner breaking his contract with Pepsi. However, the said distribution partner refused the offer and wrote to Pepsi vide letter dated 9.3.1998 informing it of the incident. 19. It is stated that Pepsi had an exclusive agreement with Hyatt Regency of New Delhi, that it would use only the Pepsi products. It was a fixed term contract and the hotel could not terminate the said agreement. It is further stated that at the behest of Coke, Hote....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged that Pepsi is guilty of suppressio-veri and suggestio-falsi. It is further alleged that the material facts have been deliberately suppressed from this Court. A number of instances have been enumerated to establish that Pepsi has not stated the facts correctly. It is alleged that Pepsi has suppressed the material facts and has based the plaint on incorrect facts. In the written statements it is also mentioned that one Me. Gaurav Duggal was given a letter of release by Pepsi and it was only after this, he joined the employment of defendant No.8. The plaintiffs have suppressed this material fact from this Court. Similarly, another example was also mentioned in which Mr. Johnny George joined the employment of defendant No.8 in response to a public advertisement dated 18.12.1996. Similarly Mr. Jitendra Nayyar, whom the defendants are alleged to have induced into breaking his contract with Pepsi also left the plaintiff's employment in December 1995 and joined Ranbaxy Laboratories, where he worked from January 1996 to December 1996. It was only after this, that he joined the employment of defendant No.8 on 6.1.1997. Similarly Mr. Sailesh Joshi and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain joined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt acknowledges, requires the use of unlawful means, but the allegations in the plaint do not set out any means used by the answering defendant or any of the defendants as are unlawful. It is stated that even where the means are unlawful, the tort is committed only, where the predominant purpose of the actions are designed to injure another. No wrong is otherwise committed and no action will lie where the real purpose is to advance the business interests of the defendants, although a damage may ensue to the plaintiffs. 28. As far as the tort of inducement of breach of contract is concerned, it is submitted that the tort is committed only where the alleged tortfeasor approaches the contractor, or where the contract is not terminable, or where the means are unlawful or where the predominant motive is to injure the other party to the contract. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the plaint, do not satisfy any of the requirements to justify the complaint that the answering defendant or any of the other defendants have committed the tort of inducement of breach of the contract. 29. In the written statements the defendants have denied that they have interf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so denied that the practices and actions referred to in the plaint constitute tortious interference in the business. It is also incorporated that the answering defendant or the other defendants are only interested in furthering their own business interests, which in the circumstances are wholly justified and proper. 33. It is also mentioned in the written statements that the answering defendant and other defendant companies are furthering their business interests by employing only such number of people as they need and adopting such measures as are common to all business establishments. It is further mentioned that the defendants had no intention to damage the business interests of the plaintiffs. It is also incorporated that the plaintiffs are apprehensive of meeting stiff competition, and precisely for that reason the plaintiffs have filed the present suit, which is nothing but an attempt to stifle healthy competition. 34. The plaintiffs cannot have any grievance because the defendant companies are entitled to further improve their own business interests. The plaintiff, (a leading rival as per own admission in the market), cannot have a grievance, even if its ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... answering defendant submits that defendant No.14, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Amitabh Bachan Corporation Ltd. (ABCL) from June 1995 to September 30,1997, apparently decided to leave the employment of ABCL in April 1997 and this fact was widely reported in the media. In early August 1997, the answering defendant was approached by a former Chairman of the Hindustan Lever Limited who forwarded a copy of defendant No.14's resume along with a request that defendant No.14 be considered for a job with the answering defendant. 2) Defendant No.14 met with executives of the answering defend ant in the first week of September 1997 and had further interviews with senior executives of the answering defendant based outside India later that month. 3) On September 26,1997 the answering defendant intimated to defendant No.14 made a formal offer to defendant No.14's on October 6,1997. The answering defendant received defendant No.14 acceptance of the offer on 6th October,1997. 4) The answering defendant states it had never been informed by defendant No.14 that he was in discussions with the plaintiffs. 39. It is mentioned in the written stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GBC. Accordingly, the question of issuing notices of termination by them could not arias. It is further mentioned that out of the remaining other alleged employees of GBC, six were trainees/temporary employees and as such were not required to give notices of termination. In any event, it is incorrect to state that the defendants or any of them had employed the entire sales team of GBC. 45. Defendant No.8 has also denied that GBC had made it clear to Coke that they did not intend to renew/continue their contract with Coke. Defendant No.8 has also denied that Mr. Steve Heath, Mr. Michel Beale, Mr. Prakash Wakankar, Ms. Harsimran Singh and Ms. Anjali Mahajeli camped in Hotel Golden Tulip at Kanpur before the imminent termination of the franchise agreement of GBC with Coke. It is denied that the presence of these persons was premeditated or had the object of carrying out an alleged corporate raid. 46. It is also denied that a high powered team was in Goa with the objective of inducing the employees to breach their employment contracts with GBC. It is also denied that Coke offered sales team inducement either in the form of higher remuneration or other benefits. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owth strategy. 50. In the written statement the objection of territorial jurisdiction has also been taken by defendant No.8. 51. Separate replications have been filed to the written statements. In the replications, averments mentioned in the plaints have been reiterated. It is mentioned that the defendants have caused considerable damage to the plaintiffs' business by hijacking their employees who have been trained by them and who have acquired confidential and exclusive business information during the course of their employment. It is also mentioned that the plaintiffs genuinely and bonafidely apprehend that the defendants are in the process of causing further damage to their business. 52. Mr. P.Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared for the plaintiffs, placed reliance on the judgments of our Courts (Supreme Court as well as High Courts) as well as judgments of the English and American Courts to support his submissions. He submitted that there is no direct judgment of the Indian Court, on the questions of law which are involved in this case. According to him, the principles of law as laid down in English case Greig Vs. Insole (1978) 3 ALL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Slade, J. decided the case after the evidence was recorded, whereas in this the evidence is yet to be recorded. 56. Mr. Chidambaram also placed reliance on another Judgment of the English court reported as Torquay Hotel Vs. Cousins & Ors (1969) 1 All E.R. 522. In the said case Lord Denning M.R. extended liability to direct, deliberate interference with the execution of a contract without causing a breach thereof. He stated that there are three requirements of such extended liability: (1) An interference in the execution of a contract, extending to cases where the defendant "prevents or hinders" performance (even though there is no breach) which is (ii) deliberate and (iii) direct. Such interference with business does not require proof that existing contracts have been breached; but the cause of action exists only when the defendant has brought about a damage. 57. Mr. Chidambaram also placed reliance on another celebrated case of Lumley Vs. Gye All. E.R. 1843. This case established for the first time that recovery can be had for inducing breach of any kind of contract and not merely contracts of employment. This tort has three forms (i) direct persuasion, (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the persuader was also at a fault or not, in what he was doing. 62. Mr. Chidambaram placed reliance on the case of M/s Tata Sons Ltd. Vs. Mastech Corp (C.S. No. 1457/94 dated 21.8.95) by the Single Judge of Madras High Court. The Court, while granting injunction mentioned that "there is a prima facie case made out by the plaintiff for getting an order of interim injunction, since it is alleged by the plaintiff that 135 employees of the plaintiff who have received training under the plaintiff, abandoned their employment (with the plaintiffs) in utter disregard of the agreement of service entered into with the plaintiff." 63. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Division Bench was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 64. Mr. Chidambaram also drawn my attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ambience Space Sellers Ltd. Vs. Asia Industrial Technology Pvt. (NOM 2395/96 in Suit 3238/96 dated 17.12.96) wherein the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the law of torts being a developing law, its frontiers are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, it to that extent void. 70. The plaintiffs had an agreement with the Contracted which can be broadly classified in two categories: i) Commercial Contracts and ii) Service/Employment Contracts: 71. Mr. Jaitely also submitted that the courts have adopted a more liberal approach with regard to the negative covenants. This is based on the principle that every member of the community is entitled to carry on trade or business as he chooses and in such manner as he thinks most desirable, in his own interest, so long as he does nothing unlawful. 72. This question was not answered in the case of Gujarat Bottling AIR1995SC2372 . The Court observed that we do not propose to go into the question whether reasonableness of restraint is outside the purview of Section 27 of the Contract Act and for the purpose of the present case we will proceed on the basis that an enquiry into reasonableness of the restrain is not envisaged by Section 27. The plaintiffs in order to justify the post employment restraints incorporated in the service and employment contracts p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts of the case wherein the key question was that the employer after terminating the contract could not force the employee into idleness by enforcing the postemployment covenant. 75. The question of negative covenants was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Golikari's case (1967)ILLJ740SC . Wherein the Court held that negative covenants operative during the period of employment when the employee is bound to serve his employer exclusively are not to be regarded as restraint of trade and Therefore do not fall under Section 27 of the Contract Act. 76. The plaintiffs also placed reliance on Fitch Vs. Dewes (1921) ALL ER 13 and on Home Counties Dairies Ltd. Vs. Skilton (1970) 1 All ER 1227. In the Fitch case, a solicitor's managing clerk was restrained for 25 years from being engaged or concerned in the business of any other solicitor within a radius of seven miles and in the case of Home Counties, the service agreement had a clause whereby the employee would not the enter into the service of any other person or firm carrying on dairy business during the period of employment and for a period of one year after the determination of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Board of Directors for instituting the suit. Therefore, both Mr. Aggarwal and Mr. Billimoria lacked authority to institute the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed because of this inher- ent defect. Reference was also made to Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules and Order 29, Rule 1 of CPC. Mr. Dave placed reliance on the decided case Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Observer Publications (P) Ltd. (Suit No. 469 of 1966 decided on 26.11.1968). This judgment was followed In Sooth India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Globe Motors (Suit No. 68 of 1969 decoded on 19.4.1974). The same view was reiterated by this Court in Nibro Limited Vs . National Insurance Co. AIR1991Delhi25 . It is also mentioned that ordinarily the Court will not non suit a person on account of technicalities. However, the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a company is not a technical matter. It has far reaching effects. It often affects the policy and finance of the company. Thus, unless the power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular Director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company and such power can only be confer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age, i.e. more than nominal damage, caused to the plaintiff by the breach. These three elements or requisites, are the grounds on which an action for inducing a breach of contract must be based. If any one of them is missing, there is no cause of action." 85. Mr.Dave also placed reliance on Lonrho Plc and Ors Vs. Fayed & Ors. 1994) 1 All E.R. 188 wherein the three Lord Justices Dillon, Steward Smith and Evans observed as under:- "an action based on tort, in that case. conspiracy, must contain specific pleading as to damage. General averments would be wholly inadequate. General averments in that case to the effect by reason of the matters set out above, the plaintiffs have suffered loss, damage and injury." 86. Mr. Dave submitted on the strength of the aforesaid judgments that the Court should refuse injunction, in cases where the plaintiffs are guilty of unconscionable behavior and do not approach the Court with clean hands. 87. Mr. Dave also submitted that the present suit as filed by the plaintiffs is not a Quia timet action. Quia timet is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "Because he fears or apprehends', in equity practice, the tec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersuade, induce or procure the employees concerned to break their contracts of employment with the intent that have been mentioned; thirdly, that the employees so persuaded, induced or procured did in fact break their contracts of employment; and fourthly, that breach of the contract forming the alleged subject of interference ensued as a necessary consequence of the breaches by the employees concerned of their contracts of employment." 91. Mr. Dave contended that in respect of kanpur sales team there is no tort, because there is no inducement or procurement. It is submitted that Mr. Kochin Wu of Kanpur had approached the defendants on his own behalf and on behalf of the fellow employees working for Pepsi in Kanpur. It was submitted that direct inducement occurs when persuasion, and procuration is brought about on the mind of person of one of the contracting parties. It was also submitted that the defendants have a better salary structure in general and no special offers have been made to the employees of Pepsi. 92. Mr. Dave submitted that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for grant of injunction. He submitted that the plaintiffs did not have the balance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaintiffs are also guilty of suppression of material facts. Mr. Chagla submitted that the entire edifice of the plaintiffs' case is without any foundation and if the plaint is rationally analysed, then the irresistible conclusion would be that the plaintiffs cannot be granted any interim relief in this case. 95. Mr. Chagla submitted that the plaintiffs have been failed to allege the necessary legal ingredients required for the torts sought to be pleaded in the plaint:- (a) Inducing a breach of contract between the plaintiffs and its employees/third parties. (b) Unlawful interference by the defendants in the performance of contracts between the plaintiffs and its employees/third parties, by the use of unlawful means. 96. These two Lords essentially require pleading and proof that :- (i) The defendants had knowledge of the existence of the con tracts (and its essential terms) between the plaintiff and its employees/third parties, the breach or interference with, which is alleged. (ii) There was in fact, a breach and not merely a lawful termination of such contract or that there was in fact, an actual interference with perfo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... response to a public advertisement dated 18th December 1997 in "The Hindu". Similarly, Mr. V. Sushil Kumar voluntarily resigned from the plaintiff's employment. Mr.Basukinath Sarkar and Mr. Siraj Chakrabarti were both employed only after they resigned from the employment of the plaintiffs. It may be pertinent to mention that the resignations of the aforesaid employees were not at the behest or at instance of the defendants. 100. The allegations that the defendants approached certain key employees of the plaintiffs which was a part of a conspiracy to cause prejudice, loss and damage to the plaintiff's business interests and that "if it was successful will result in huge losses and damage to the plaintiffs"., have been vehemently denied by Mr. Chagla, the learned counsel for the defendants. He submitted that none of the senior employees actually left the employment of the plaintiffs and thus no termination of their contracts, or much less any prejudice is caused to the plaintiffs. According to him, it is not even alleged by the plaintiffs that there has been any interference with the performance of the contracts of the said senior employees, by the use of any unlawf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nos. 13 and 14 that there was no inducement from the defendants to break his con-tract with the Sports Consultant and further that there was no offer to him from the plaintiffs at any point of time before or during his negotiations with the defendants. Under these circumstances, no tort at all can, Therefore, arise in a case where admittedly there is no contract in existence between the plaintiffs and Mr. Srinath. Mr. Chagla submitted that the mere intention on the part of the Sports Consultant to sign an agreement with Mr. Srinath (even assuming whilst denying such intention) cannot be to the subject matter of any breach or unlawful interference by the defendants. The allegation that defendant No.14 tried to induce Mr. Srinath to breach his contract with the plaintiffs is false and has been denied by defendant No.14 in his affidavit. 105. Regarding Mr. Sanath Jayasuriya, a Sri Lankan cricket celebrity, Mr. Chagla submitted that it was the plaintiffs who directly negotiated with the Sri Lankan Test Cricketer in breach of the exclusive contract that World Tel Inc had with him. When World Tel Complained, the plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Jayasuriya had repeatedly assured the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntire team of GBC comprising of 61 sales staff resigned en bloc from GBC to take up employment with the defendants is factually incorrect to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Only 3 out of 61 individuals preferred to work for GBC. 26 out of 61 individuals were independent route agents and not employees of GBC or its associates and Therefore, they were not re quired to give any notice of termination. 6 out of 61 individuals were trainees/temporary employees who were not required to give any notice of termination. 112. Remaining 26 out of 61 individuals were not the employees of GBC but of two other associate companies viz. Beverage Venture Pvt. Ltd and Trupti Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The defendants believe that all the aforesaid individuals validly terminated their employment. It is stated that the letter dated 14.2.1998 is a self serving letter, procured by the plaintiffs from Mr. Prashant Timblo of GBC just two days prior to the filling of the suit. The learned counsel for the defendants stated that no complaint had been made nor were proceedings taken by the GBC or its associate companies. 113. Similarly, the plaintiffs have also not filed any affidavit either of Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws were held and each of these individuals were asked about their expertise, experience, competence and skills to evaluate their suitability for employment with the defendants. However, no information about the plaintiffs, much less any confidential information nor information about their salaries or salary structure was asked or discussed. It is also submitted that 7 out of 11 individuals who had appointment letters from the defendants were not given any special benefits but were absorbed into the regular grade structure of the defendants, which was more liberal and remunerative than the grade and emolument structure of the plaintiffs. 117. Mr. Chagla while denying the charge that the defendants induced any breach of contract, submitted that it was in fact the plaintiffs who had induced breach of contract of employment with the defendants in respect of 5 out of 7 individuals employed by the defendants. These five individuals, namely, Mr. Pandey, Mr. Udhaniniya, Mr. Mishra, Mr. Aggarwal, and Mr. Dwivedi were coerced into issuing standardised typed letters of resignation to defendant No.5 prepared obviously by the plaintiffs wherein only the address of defendant No.5. the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 122. Mr. Chagla submitted that it is also well settled that no action lies for inducing a breach of a void contract or for interference with performance of a contract which must be regarded as contrary to public policy. He also placed reliance on Grieg Vs. Insole (supra) Hi-line Electric Company Vs. Dowco Electrical Products (765 F 2d 1359, Court of Appeal 5th Circuit). 123. Mr. Chagla submitted that contracts which are not for a fixed period but are terminable at will or upon giving notice, are terminable at the option of either party. Terminating such contracts would not amount to any breach of contract since such termination is merely the exercise of an option available in law. He further submitted that there is no tort to procure the termination of a terminable contract where the person induced is the party who enjoys the right to terminate such a contract. He referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 45, para 1519 which reads as under:- 1519. Liability for inducing a breach of contract by an employee. Since it is a violation of legal right to interfere with contractual relations recognised by law if there is not sufficient justificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay High Court in Harjit Singh Kang Vs. Jet Airways delivered on 24th July 1996 (in Appeal from Order No.837 of 1996) the Court recognised and gave effect to a clause which provided for termination of the contract on either side on giving three months notice in writing or by payment of the months' salary in lieu of notice. The Court refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the employee from leaving his service although he had been trained at the expense of Jet Airways both in India and abroad. 125. Mr. Chagla also placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court; Tata Sons Limited Vs. Mastech Corporation & Others; delivered in C.S. No. 1457 of 1994 on 21.8.1995 and another decision of the Division Bench of the Same High Court by Srinivasan, J. and Abdul Wahab, J. In these judgments, the Court highlighted the requirement that the contract should be a contract at will, in this the contracts were for a term of three years which were prematurely broken. They were not contracts terminable at will. 126. Mr. Chagla also placed reliance on a large number of judgments of the American and English Courts. He submitted that even in American Law where the contrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Mr. Chagla also cited a number of decisions in support of his contention that in case where the defendant was motivated by an intent to injure the plaintiffs and not to further the defendant's legitimate business interests, actions of the defendant, will result in interfering with or inducing a breach of contract. In cases where the defendant was motivated to further his own legitimate business interests in that event the defendant cannot be held guilty for interfering with or inducing a breach of the plaintiff's contract. 131. He placed reliance on Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. McGregor, Gow & Co. and others (1891) (4) All ER 263 which recognises that, in the absence of unlawful means, a trader could not be held liable for these torts if his actions be motivated by this own gain in furtherance of free competition. 132. Mr. Chagla has also drawn my attention to the judgment in People's Security Life Insurance Co. Vs. Milton S. Hooks (1988) 322 N.C. 216; 367 S.E. 2nd 647. In this case the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a claim for tortious interference would not be lie where the defendant had only offered the plaintiff's employees job opportu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... English judgments to demonstrate that English Law also preserves the sanctity of free competition. He placed reliance on Mogul Steamship Co. (Supra) in which their Lordships held as under: "It is not illegal for a trader to aim at driving a competitor out of trade, provided the motive be his own gain by appropriation of the trade, and the means he uses be lawful weapons." 136. In Ambience Space Sellers Limited & Others Vs. Asia Industrial Tech- nology private Limited & Another, learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court S.N. Variava, J. in notice of Motion No.2395 of 1996 in Suit No. 3283 of 96 reported in 1998 PTC 18 observed as under: "Of course any act honestly done by a person in furtherance of his own trade/profession, will not amount to a Tort of Inducing breach of contract, merely because it has induced such a breach. This because free and fair competition cannot be curtailed. The difference in all such cases is whether the act is done solely to carry on one's own trade or whether the act was done with intent to induce a breach or profiteer from somebody else's efforts." 137. Mr. Chagla also placed reliance on Asia Industrial Techn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or unlawful acts. On the contrary, the defendants have acted solely in furtherance of their own legitimate business interests. 142. Mr. Chagla submitted that this suit has been filed to stifle free competition. He also placed reliance on the following observations of their Lordships in Gujarat Bottling Company's case (supra). The relevant portion reads as under: "there is a long history of trade rivalry between these multinational corporations" (Pepsi and Coca-Cola) and their wars are fought on the economic plane but some of the battles spill over the courts of law." 143. He submitted that the present battle is one which should have never disturbed a Court of law and should have been ought to be relegated to the market place. 144. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also carefully examined the pleadings and documents on record. 145. The grant of injunctions is an equitable relief and various factors have to be carefully taken into consideration before granting it. 146. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, prima facie, in my considered o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learly mentioned that these two employees joined defendant Nos. 5 and 6 only after completing their notice period on the terms of their contract of employment. (II) (e) Mr. Bipaschit Bose: The defendants while denying the averments of the plaint have specifically incorporated in their written statements that he was not an employee of the defendants. He is a professional and independent consultant who runs his placement agency. (II) (f) Similarly the averments regarding Hotel Hyatt Regency have also been specifically denied. In the written statements it is clearly mentioned that Hotel Hyatt Regency stocked and served amongst other beverages, both Pepsi and Coke and was not and is not a one product hotel. (II) (g) Goa Bottling Company : The allegation that the entire team of GBC comprising of 61 sales officer resigned to take up employment with the defendants is factually incorrect. According to the written statements of the defendants, only three out of 61 individuals preferred to work for GBC. (II) (h) Kanpur Sales Team : In reply to the allegation, defendants 9,10,11 and 12 in conspiracy with defendant No. 16 took away the entire Kanpur Sales Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to terminate their contracts also cannot be curtailed by Court injunction. (g) An injunction can be granted only for protecting the rights of the plaintiffs, but cannot be granted to limit the legal rights of the defendants. (h) An injunction cannot be granted where the Courts have a doubt in the credibility, veracity and truthfulness of the plaintiff's version. (i) An injunction also cannot be granted in a case where the Court directly or indirectly gets the impression that the injunction has been sought for extraneous considerations or oblique motives. (j) Rough and tumble of the business including stiff competition has to be faced in a free market economy. The problems which should be settled in the market place cannot be brought to Law Courts or settled by a Court injunction. (k) In economic matters, while granting injunction, business realities have to be taken into consideration. The employees seek betterment and advancement of their careers, while they are in service. It is impracticable and unrealistic to artificially create a situation by a Court injunction when employees would first leave the employment and then look for be....