NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

TC - ____302

NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KULRASHTRA

AT KULRASHTRA, INDISTAN

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

{under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 against Injunction order}

IN THE CASE OF

Mr. Rakesh Mishra ……...…………..…...Petitioners

v.

Electrotech Limited …….……………....Respondents

[Civil Appeal NO. _______ OF 2024]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................4

STATUTES AND RULES.......................................................................................................4

MISCELLANEOUS................................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................7

ISSUES RAISED.......................................................................................................................8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................9

[1] THAT THE HIGH COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE

CHALLENGE TO THE AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION..........................................................9

[2] THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY GRANTED THE AD-INTERIM

INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF ELECTROTECH LIMITED..................................................9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................10

[1.] THAT THE HIGH COURT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN

CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER GRANTING AN AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION IN THE
INSTANT CASE...................................................................................................................10

[2.] THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY GRANTED THE ORDER OF AD-
INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF ELECTROTECH LIMITED............................15

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................20

2| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

Id. Idem

No. Number

Ors. Others

p. Page

r/w Read With

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

3| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND RULES

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908………………………………………………..

………..passim

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 ………………………………………………..

………....passim

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 ………………………………………………..……...

…..passim

LIST OF CASES

1. Ambience India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Naveen Nischal, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6573.

2. American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri, (2006) 3 LLJ 540.

3. Arvind Chintamani Datar v. Matha Amritanandamayi Mission, (2006) 1 MLJ 835.

4. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2015) 12 SCC 1.

5. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Custodian, (2004) 7 SCC 76.

6. Bucyrus Europe Ltd. v. Vulcan Industries Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2005 Cal 30.

7. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1.

8. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719.

9. Diljeet Titus v. Alfred A. Adebare, (2006) 130 DLT 330.

10. Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117.

11. Electrotech Limited v. Rakesh Mishra, District Court of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra (2024).

12. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545.

13. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Godrej Soaps Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 728.

14. Jai Narain Educational Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (5) AWC 4928.

15. Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90.

16. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (1967) 2

4| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

SCR 378.

17. Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. v. Pure Fitness & Ors., (2015) 222 DLT 372.

18. Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 227.

19. Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249.

20. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Shalimar Overseas Ltd., (2016) 233 DLT 408.

21. Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161.

22. Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, 2010 (112) DRJ 703.

23. Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1980) 3 SCR 1278.

24. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2014 (3) ABR 100.

25. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill,

(2006) 2 SCC 740.

26. V.N. Deshpande v. Arvind Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1946 Bom 423.

27. Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp. SCC 727.

28. Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A., (2006) 131 DLT 681.

29. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 3 BomCR 693.

30. Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388.

MISCELLANEOUS

1. Citation Style
a. HARVARD BLUEBOOK (20th ed.)
2. Legal Dictionary for Interpretation
a. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (7th ed., 1999).
3. Legal Websites
a. INDIAN KANOON, https://www.indiankanoon.org
b. CASEMINE, https://www.casemine.com
c. LEGAL SERVICES INDIA, https://www.legalservicesindia.org
d. PARLIAMENT OF INDIA, https://parliamentofindia.nic/parl.html
e. SCC ONLINE BLOGS, https://www.scconline.com/blog
4. Research Database

5| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

1) SCC Online®
2) Manupatra®

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kulrashtra responding to the
appeal filed by the Petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code challenging the order of the District Judge of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra, which
granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Electrotech Limited, restraining Mr. Mishra from
joining Information Technology Consultancy Services. The respondent contends that the
present Appeal is not maintainable and the order is valid in light of law.

1
Order 43 Rule 1 r/w Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

6| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

WE MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That Electrotech Limited, a prominent IT company based in Cyberpur, Kulrashtra,

provides business consulting, information technology, and outsourcing services.
Established in Cyberpur and headquartered there, it is the second-largest IT company in
Indistan and one of the top ‘Big Tech’ companies in the nation. Like many other private
companies in the industry, Electrotech Limited has faced the challenge of a high attrition
rate. To mitigate this issue, the company introduced a non-compete clause in its
employment contracts, applicable to all employees joining the organization from the year
2022 onwards.
2. That Mr. Rakesh Mishra, a graduate of the 2022 batch from the National Institute of
Technology, joined Electrotech Limited as a junior engineer on May 2, 2022. Upon
joining, he signed an employment contract that included the aforementioned non-
compete clause. He was assigned to a team tasked with developing proprietary software
aimed at creating Artificial Intelligence chatbots tailored for Indistan citizens. However,
on April 22, 2024, Mr. Mishra abruptly resigned from his position. Following his
resignation, Electrotech Limited completed the necessary deboarding formalities and
reminded Mr. Mishra of the non-compete clause.
3. That on May 22, 2024, Mr. Mishra posted a job update on his LinkedIn page, announcing
his new role as a senior engineer at Information Technology Consultancy Services. Upon
discovering this update, Electrotech Limited initiated legal action, filing a suit for
damages and enforcement of the non-compete clause before the Court of the District
Judge in Cyberpur, Kulrashtra. The company sought damages amounting to Rs.
11,00,00,000/- (Eleven Crores Rupees) and requested an injunction to prevent Mr.
Mishra from joining Information Technology Consultancy Services, arguing that such
employment would violate the non-compete clause and potentially compromise
proprietary data. Mr. Mishra, in his defence, contended that the non-compete clause was
illegal and unenforceable under the law. After hearing arguments from both sides, the
District Judge of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra, granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of
Electrotech Limited, restraining Mr. Mishra from joining Information Technology

7| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Consultancy Services. Mr. Mishra subsequently challenged this order before the High
Court of Kulrashtra.

ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A

CHALLENGE TO AN ORDER GRANTING AN AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION?

II.

WHETHER THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY GRANTED THE ORDER OF AD-

INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF ELECTROTECH LIMITED?

8| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] THAT THE HIGH COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE

CHALLENGE TO THE AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge, as the lower court has exercised its discretion
judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles. The District Judge has
considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury while
granting the injunction, which is limited in scope, reasonable, and necessary for the
protection of Electrotech Limited's interests. The injunction serves to prevent the misuse of
confidential information and proprietary data. The High Court's power to interfere with an ad-
interim injunction granted by a lower court is limited, as held in various precedents. The
District Judge's order is well-reasoned and based on settled legal principles, and therefore, the
High Court should refrain from interfering with the ad-interim injunction. The injunction
strikes a balance between the rights and interests of both parties and serves the public interest
by preventing the misuse of confidential information. As the District Judge has exercised its
discretion judiciously, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the ad-
interim injunction.

[2] THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY GRANTED THE AD-INTERIM

INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF ELECTROTECH LIMITED

It is most humbly submitted that the District Judge of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra, has correctly
granted the ad-interim injunction in favor of Electrotech Limited, restraining Mr. Rakesh
Mishra from joining Information Technology Consultancy Services. The injunction is a well-
reasoned order based on established legal principles and a judicious exercise of the court's
discretionary power. Electrotech Limited has established a strong prima facie case, as the
non-compete clause in the employment agreement is valid and enforceable during the
subsistence of the agreement. The balance of convenience lies in favor of granting the
injunction to Electrotech Limited, as it may suffer irreparable loss due to the potential breach
of confidentiality and misuse of its proprietary information. The injunction is reasonable,
limited in scope, and necessary to protect Electrotech Limited's legitimate interests. It serves
the interest of justice by preventing the breach of confidentiality and misuse of proprietary

9| MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

information, upholds the sanctity of contractual obligations, and is in line with statutory
provisions governing the grant of temporary injunctions.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[1.] THAT THE HIGH COURT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN

CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER GRANTING AN AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION IN
THE INSTANT CASE

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the
challenge to the present order granting ad-interim injunction in the instant case. The District
Judge of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra, has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Electrotech
Limited, restraining Mr. Rakesh Mishra from joining Information Technology Consultancy
Services, as such employment would violate the non-compete clause and potentially
compromise proprietary data.2 The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with an ad-
interim injunction granted by a lower court is limited, as established in various precedents. In
Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the decision to
grant an interlocutory injunction is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion by the court,
and such discretion should be exercised judiciously. 3 Similarly, in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.
v. Coca Cola Co., the apex court emphasized that the grant of an interim injunction is an
equitable remedy and should be granted only after considering the balance of convenience
and irreparable injury.4 Furthermore, in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden,
the Supreme Court stated that an appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of
discretion by the trial court unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously,
or perversely.5

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge, as the lower court has exercised its discretion
judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles. The District Judge has
considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury while
granting the injunction. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, the Supreme Court held that the

2
Electrotech Limited v. Rakesh Mishra, District Court of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra (2024).
3
Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp. SCC 727.
4
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545.
5
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117.

10 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

existence of a prima facie case is a condition precedent for the grant of an interim injunction. 6
The District Judge has found that Electrotech Limited has established a prima facie case, as
the non-compete clause in the employment contract is valid and enforceable. The Supreme
Court, in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
held that negative covenants operating during the period of employment, when the employee
is bound to serve the employer exclusively, are not in restraint of trade and do not violate
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.7 Moreover, in Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Zaheer Khan & Anr., the apex court stated that a restrictive covenant extending beyond the
term of the contract is void and not enforceable under Section 27 of the Contract Act. 8 In the
present case, the non-compete clause operates only during the subsistence of the agreement
and is therefore valid.

It is most humbly submitted that the balance of convenience also lies in favor of Electrotech
Limited. If the ad-interim injunction is not granted, Electrotech Limited may suffer
irreparable loss due to the potential loss of its proprietary data and confidential information.
The Supreme Court, in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., held that
the court should consider the comparative mischief or inconvenience likely to be caused to
either party in granting or refusing the injunction. 9 In the instant case, the harm caused to
Electrotech Limited by refusing the injunction would outweigh any inconvenience caused to
Mr. Mishra. Furthermore, in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Godrej Soaps Ltd., the apex court
stated that the grant of an interim injunction should be based on the principle of irreparable
injury, where the injury suffered by the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated in
damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in the plaintiff's favor at
trial.10 The potential loss of proprietary data and confidential information by Electrotech
Limited constitutes an irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages.

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is
limited in scope and does not impose an unreasonable restraint on Mr. Mishra's right to
pursue his profession. The injunction is restricted as to time, the nature of employment, and
area, and is therefore reasonable and necessary for the protection of Electrotech Limited's
interests. In Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, the Supreme

6
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719.
7
Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (1967) 2 SCR 378.
8
Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 227.
9
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1.
10
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Godrej Soaps Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 728.

11 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Court held that a restrictive covenant should not be greater than necessary to protect the
employer's interests.11 The apex court, in V.N. Deshpande v. Arvind Mills Co. Ltd., stated
that a negative covenant during employment is proper and an injunction granted in terms
thereof is not unreasonable or of wider latitude than justified in law. 12 The ad-interim
injunction in the present case meets these criteria and does not impose an unreasonable
restraint on Mr. Mishra's professional pursuits.

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge, as it is a well-reasoned order based on established
legal principles. The Supreme Court, in Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, held that an appellate court should not interfere with
the grant or refusal of an interim injunction by the trial court unless the trial court has
exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or perverse manner. 13 In the present case,
the District Judge has exercised its discretion judiciously, considering the prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Moreover, in Skyline Education Institute
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, the Delhi High Court emphasized that an appellate court
should not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court while deciding on the grant
or refusal of an interim injunction.14 The High Court should therefore refrain from interfering
with the well-reasoned order of the District Judge granting the ad-interim injunction.

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the
challenge to the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, as it is an order passed in
the exercise of the lower court's discretionary power. The Supreme Court, in Shiv Kumar
Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, held that an appellate court should not interfere
with the exercise of discretion by the lower court unless the discretion has been exercised in
an arbitrary or perverse manner.15 The discretionary power of the lower court to grant an ad-
interim injunction should not be interfered with lightly, as established in Midas Hygiene
Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia.16 In the present case, the District Judge has exercised
its discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled legal principles, and therefore, the
High Court should not interfere with the ad-interim injunction granted.

11
Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1980) 3 SCR 1278.
12
V.N. Deshpande v. Arvind Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1946 Bom 423.
13
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, (2006) 2 SCC 740.
14
Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, 2010 (112) DRJ 703.
15
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161.
16
Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90.

12 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is
necessary to protect the legitimate interests of Electrotech Limited and to prevent the misuse
of its confidential information and proprietary data. The Supreme Court, in Zee Telefilms
Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd., held that the purpose of granting an interim
injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute in status quo and to prevent any
change detrimental to the party seeking the injunction. 17 The ad-interim injunction in the
instant case serves this purpose by preventing Mr. Mishra from joining a competitor and
potentially compromising Electrotech Limited's confidential information. Furthermore, in
Bucyrus Europe Ltd. v. Vulcan Industries Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., the Calcutta High
Court stated that an interim injunction is necessary to protect the plaintiff's rights pending the
trial and to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. 18 The ad-interim injunction
granted by the District Judge is essential to protect Electrotech Limited's rights and to prevent
the misuse of its confidential information pending the final adjudication of the dispute.

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge, as it is a well-balanced order that takes into account
the rights and interests of both parties. The Supreme Court, in Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra, held that while granting an interim injunction, the court should
consider the comparative mischief or inconvenience likely to be caused to either party and
should pass an order that is least injurious to either party. 19 The ad-interim injunction in the
present case is a well-balanced order that protects the legitimate interests of Electrotech
Limited while not imposing an unreasonable restraint on Mr. Mishra's professional pursuits.
Moreover, in Jai Narain Educational Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad
High Court emphasized that an interim injunction should be granted only after balancing the
equities between the parties and considering the public interest involved. 20 The ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge takes into account the equities between the parties
and serves the public interest by preventing the misuse of confidential information and
proprietary data.

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the
challenge to the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, as the lower court has
exercised its discretion in accordance with established legal principles and has passed a well-
17
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 3 BomCR 693.
18
Bucyrus Europe Ltd. v. Vulcan Industries Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2005 Cal 30.
19
Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388.
20
Jai Narain Educational Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (5) AWC 4928.

13 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

reasoned order. The Supreme Court, in Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., held
that the appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court
unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 21 In the instant case, the
District Judge has exercised its discretion judiciously, considering the prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Furthermore, in Tata Chemicals Ltd. v.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd., the Bombay High Court stated that an appellate court should not
interfere with the grant or refusal of an interim injunction by the trial court unless the trial
court has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 22 The ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge is a well-reasoned order based on settled legal
principles and does not warrant interference by the High Court.

It is most humbly submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the ad-interim
injunction granted by the District Judge, as it is necessary to prevent the misuse of
Electrotech Limited's confidential information and proprietary data. The Supreme Court, in
Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., held that the purpose of granting an interim
injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute in status quo and to prevent any
change detrimental to the party seeking the injunction. 23 The ad-interim injunction in the
present case serves this purpose by preventing Mr. Mishra from joining a competitor and
potentially compromising Electrotech Limited's confidential information. Moreover, in
Ambience India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Naveen Nischal, the Delhi High Court stated that an
interim injunction is necessary to protect the plaintiff's rights pending the trial and to prevent
irreparable harm.24 The ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is essential to
protect Electrotech Limited's rights and to prevent irreparable harm caused by the potential
misuse of its confidential information.

A fortiori, it is most humbly submitted that the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain
the challenge to the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge in favor of Electrotech
Limited. The ad-interim injunction is a well-reasoned order based on settled legal principles,
and the District Judge has exercised its discretion judiciously, considering the prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The injunction is necessary to protect
the legitimate interests of Electrotech Limited and to prevent the misuse of its confidential
information and proprietary data. The High Court should refrain from interfering with the ad-
21
Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp. SCC 727.
22
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2014 (3) ABR 100.
23
Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2015) 12 SCC 1.
24
Ambience India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Naveen Nischal, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6573.

14 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

interim injunction, as it is a well-balanced order that takes into account the rights and
interests of both parties and serves the public interest. Therefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that the High Court should uphold the ad-interim injunction granted by the District
Judge and dismiss the challenge against it.

[2.] THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY GRANTED THE ORDER OF AD-
INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF ELECTROTECH LIMITED

It is most humbly submitted that the District Judge of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra, correctly granted
the ad-interim injunction in favor of Electrotech Limited, restraining Mr. Rakesh Mishra from
joining Information Technology Consultancy Services. The grant of an ad-interim injunction
is a well-reasoned order based on established legal principles and a judicious exercise of the
court's discretionary power. In Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., the Supreme
Court held that the grant of an interlocutory injunction is a matter requiring the exercise of
discretion by the court, which must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled
principles.25 The District Judge, in the present case, has carefully considered the prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury while granting the ad-interim injunction,
as mandated by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. 26
Furthermore, in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., the apex court
emphasized that the court should grant an interim injunction only if it is satisfied that the
plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favor of
granting the injunction.27

It is most humbly submitted that Electrotech Limited has established a strong prima facie
case in its favor, as the non-compete clause in the employment agreement with Mr. Mishra is
valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court, in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century
Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., held that negative covenants operating during the
period of employment, when the employee is bound to serve the employer exclusively, are
not in restraint of trade and do not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. 28 In the
instant case, the non-compete clause operates during the subsistence of the agreement and is
therefore valid and enforceable. Moreover, in Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer
Khan & Anr., the apex court stated that a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of

25
Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp. SCC 727.
26
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545.
27
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1.
28
Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (1967) 2 SCR 378.

15 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

the contract is void under Section 27 of the Contract Act. 29 The non-compete clause in the
present case is limited to the duration of the agreement and does not extend beyond its term,
making it legally valid and enforceable.

It is most humbly submitted that the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting the ad-
interim injunction to Electrotech Limited. If the injunction is not granted, Electrotech Limited
may suffer irreparable loss due to the potential breach of confidentiality and misuse of its
proprietary information by Mr. Mishra. The Supreme Court, in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v.
Godrej Soaps Ltd., held that the court should consider the comparative mischief or
inconvenience likely to be caused to either party in granting or refusing the injunction. 30 In
the present case, the harm likely to be caused to Electrotech Limited by refusing the
injunction outweighs any inconvenience that may be caused to Mr. Mishra. Furthermore, in
American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri, the Delhi High Court stated that the balance of
convenience lies in favor of granting an injunction if the plaintiff demonstrates that it would
suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. 31 The potential loss of confidential
information and proprietary data by Electrotech Limited constitutes an irreparable injury that
cannot be adequately compensated by damages.

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is
reasonable and necessary for the protection of Electrotech Limited's legitimate interests. The
injunction is limited in scope, restricted as to time, nature of employment, and area, and does
not impose an undue hardship on Mr. Mishra. In Superintendence Company of India (P)
Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, the Supreme Court held that a restrictive covenant should not be
more extensive than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's interests. 32 The ad-
interim injunction in the instant case meets this criterion and is a reasonable restriction
necessary to safeguard Electrotech Limited's confidential information and proprietary data.
Moreover, in Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A., the Delhi High Court
emphasized that an injunction restraining an employee from joining a competitor is justified
if the employee has access to confidential information and there is a risk of such information
being misused.33

29
Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 227.
30
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Godrej Soaps Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 728.
31
American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri, (2006) 3 LLJ 540.
32
Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1980) 3 SCR 1278.
33
Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A., (2006) 131 DLT 681.

16 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

It is most humbly submitted that the District Judge has exercised its discretion judiciously
and in accordance with settled legal principles while granting the ad-interim injunction. The
Supreme Court, in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, held that the
appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court unless the
discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. 34 In the present case, the
District Judge has carefully considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and
irreparable injury, and has passed a well-reasoned order granting the ad-interim injunction.
Furthermore, in Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna
Rice Mill, the apex court stated that the appellate court should not substitute its own
discretion for that of the trial court in matters of grant or refusal of interim injunctions. 35

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is
necessary to prevent the misuse of Electrotech Limited's confidential information and
proprietary data by Mr. Mishra. The Supreme Court, in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial
Communications Pvt. Ltd., held that the purpose of granting an interim injunction is to
preserve the subject matter of the dispute in status quo and to prevent any change detrimental
to the party seeking the injunction. 36 The ad-interim injunction in the instant case serves this
purpose by restraining Mr. Mishra from joining a competitor and potentially compromising
Electrotech Limited's confidential information. Moreover, in Diljeet Titus v. Alfred A.
Adebare, the Delhi High Court stated that an injunction is necessary to prevent the breach of
confidentiality and misuse of confidential information by a former employee.37

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is in
consonance with the principles of equity and justice. The injunction strikes a balance between
protecting the legitimate interests of Electrotech Limited and not imposing an unreasonable
restraint on Mr. Mishra's right to pursue his profession. In Arvind Chintamani Datar v.
Matha Amritanandamayi Mission, the Madras High Court held that while granting an
injunction, the court should exercise its discretion in a manner that is just and equitable to
both parties.38 The ad-interim injunction in the present case is a well-balanced order that takes
into account the rights and interests of both Electrotech Limited and Mr. Mishra.
Furthermore, in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Custodian, the Supreme Court

34
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161.
35
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, (2006) 2 SCC 740.
36
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 3 BomCR 693.
37
Diljeet Titus v. Alfred A. Adebare, (2006) 130 DLT 330.
38
Arvind Chintamani Datar v. Matha Amritanandamayi Mission, (2006) 1 MLJ 835.

17 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

emphasized that the courts should exercise their discretionary power to grant injunctions in a
manner that advances the cause of justice and prevents abuse of the legal process.39

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is
necessary to uphold the sanctity of contractual obligations and to prevent the breach of the
non-compete clause by Mr. Mishra. The Supreme Court, in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v.
Coca Cola Co., held that the courts should enforce negative covenants in agreements unless
they are unreasonable or opposed to public policy.40 The non-compete clause in the instant
case is a reasonable restriction necessary to protect Electrotech Limited's legitimate interests
and does not violate public policy. Moreover, in Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. v. Pure Fitness &
Ors., the Delhi High Court stated that the courts should enforce negative covenants in
agreements to prevent unfair competition and to safeguard the employer's confidential
information.41

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge is in
line with the statutory provisions governing the grant of temporary injunctions. Order 39,
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empower the courts to grant temporary
injunctions in cases where the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience,
and irreparable injury.42 The District Judge, in the present case, has carefully considered these
factors and has passed a well-reasoned order granting the ad-interim injunction. Furthermore,
in Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the
courts should exercise their power to grant temporary injunctions judiciously and in
accordance with the statutory provisions.43

It is most humbly submitted that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge
serves the interest of justice and prevents the abuse of the legal process by Mr. Mishra. The
Supreme Court, in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, held that the courts should
exercise their discretionary power to grant injunctions in a manner that promotes justice and
prevents the abuse of the legal process.44 In the instant case, Mr. Mishra's attempt to join a
competitor in violation of the non-compete clause constitutes an abuse of the legal process,
and the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge prevents such abuse. Moreover, in

39
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Custodian, (2004) 7 SCC 76.
40
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545.
41
Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. v. Pure Fitness & Ors., (2015) 222 DLT 372.
42
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2.
43
Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388.
44
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249.

18 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Shalimar Overseas Ltd., the Delhi High Court emphasized
that the courts should grant injunctions to prevent the violation of contractual obligations and
to uphold the rule of law.45

A fortiori, it is most humbly submitted that the District Judge of Cyberpur, Kulrashtra, has
correctly granted the ad-interim injunction in favor of Electrotech Limited, restraining Mr.
Rakesh Mishra from joining Information Technology Consultancy Services. The ad-interim
injunction is a well-reasoned order based on established legal principles and a judicious
exercise of the court's discretionary power. Electrotech Limited has made out a strong prima
facie case, the balance of convenience lies in its favor, and it would suffer irreparable injury if
the injunction is not granted. The injunction is reasonable, necessary to protect Electrotech
Limited's legitimate interests, and serves the interest of justice by preventing the breach of
confidentiality and misuse of proprietary information. Therefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge should be upheld, and the
challenge against it should be dismissed.

45
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Shalimar Overseas Ltd., (2016) 233 DLT 408.

19 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. That the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an order granting an
ad-interim injunction in the instant case.
2. That the District Judge correctly granted the order of ad-interim injunction in favour of
Electrotech Limited.

And pass any other order or relief in favor of the Respondent in the large interest of justice.

All of which is most respectfully submitted

Sd/-

Counsels on behalf of Respondent

20 | MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT