Justice Anand Venkatesh is Versatile : Need Proof?                                Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan                             Justice N Anand Venkatesh has been a trail blazer of sorts. He cannot be slotted in any portfolio as a ‘specialist

Justice Anand Venkatesh is Versatile : Need Proof?

 

Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan

 

 

 

Justice N Anand Venkatesh has been a trail blazer of sorts. He cannot be slotted in any portfolio as a ‘specialistந’. He is an all rounder. Well, he is an enthusiastic cricketer, even today, as he religiously turns out for the Judges’ team in the annual fanfare against the Bar. And he is a singer too. A versatile judge. He has forayed into unchartered territories and seem to be a fish in water. Comfortable.Law is an ocean and each of  us knows but a pebble or less. But this man has a lot of marbles and has already a good collection of pebbles. More than most of us.

 

Remember the pathbreaking decision in the LGBTQ case,  involving a couple of girls who approached the court for protection  against being hounded. This man admitted his own pre conceived notions on this sensitive issue and willingness to submit himself to counselling,? even while recommend it to the parties too. Forget it, this one cause may suffice for the occasion. I am not adding more. You do the homework.

 

Now read the abridgement of his recent verdict in the matter of assessment of ‘consequential damages and disgorgement of profits’. One of a kind. With no direct precedent  on first principles. But he dug deep. To be sure. And has come up with a fascinating pronouncement. Lovely to read and not the dull, drab, dreary genre on the pedestrian original side.

————————————————-

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Suit No.258 of 2020 (Comm.Suits)

 

E-merge Tech Global Services p Ltd.,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.R.Venkatesh   .. Plaintiff

 

Versus

1. Mr.M.R.Vindhyasagar
2. Datasolve Analytics P ltd.

Represented by its Director, Mr.M.R.Vidhyasagar ..Defendants

 

 

Plaintiff involved in business of service/knowledge processing had filed a suit against 1st Defendant, its former employee and 2nd Defendant, a company run by 1st Defendant for violating the non-compete, non-solicitation of customers/clients and the confidentiality terms. It is alleged that 1st Defendant left the Plaintiff company in 2017 and floated  2nd Defendant company in 2020 with  a business model similar to that of Plaintiff. It was averred that the main customer of the Plaintiff Company viz., PI Healthcare Holdings Limited was virtually knocked off by the first Defendant from the financial year 2019-20.

 

Hence , Plaintiff has sought for damages to a tune of Rs.2 Crores and relief of Permanent injunction as against Defendants from soliciting customers of Plaintiff. Plaintiff  has also sought for rendition of accounts and disclosure of confidential information.

 

The Court considering the appointment letter of 1st Defendant which had  the clause of non-solicit and confidentiality clauses after being relieved from employment, held 1st Defendant is bound by it. The documents marked prove that 1st Defendant had access to confidential information of the Plaintiff Company and was also the main contact on the side of the Plaintiff Company in touch with PI Healthcare Holding Limited, until his resignation. Hence the Plaintiff was held entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed.

 

With regard to damages claimed to a tune of 2 crores , it was seen that upto financial 2018-2019, the maximum earnings were only from PI Healthcare. However during the financial year 2019-2020 the turnover dropped from Rs.1,17,44,656/- to Rs.20,93,425/- with a loss of Rs.96,51,264/- was suffered by the Plaintiff Company due to the consequence  of 1st Defendant floating the 2nd Defendant Company in the year 2019 and diverting the revenues from PI Healthcare into the 2nd Defendant Company.

 

Plaintiff had claimed damages under the head of compensatory damages as also under the head of restitutionary damages by way of an account of profits. The Court relying upon various decisions held both compensatory damages as well as an account of profits cannot be awarded as they are alternative and inconsistent remedies between which the Plaintiff must elect.

 

However Plaintiff was held entitled to account of profits, when Plaintiff makes out an exceptional case wherein the loss suffered could not be measured adequately. Here the Plaintiff has adequately established and proved that it has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 96,51,264/-. Thus the Plaintiff does not fall within the exceptional class of cases for an account of profits and hence the claim for account of profits was rejected by the Court.

 

With regard to the claim for copyright infringement based on the contents of the web page of the second Defendant, it was held that judged by the standard of an ordinary prudent man it was impossible to mistake the second Defendant company to be a rebranded version of the Plaintiff Company and the same was rejected.

 

Thus the Defendants were held liable to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.96,51,264/-  towards damages along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with direction of perpetual injunction against the Defendants from soliciting customers of Plaintiff and to disclose confidential information as claimed by the Plaintiff.

——————————————-

 

The decision is near arithmetically dissected and decided. The precision tools at play are befitting. One is unwilling to elaborate, as a reading of the verdict in full, may be  better and fulfilling. To those who may care and indulge in. That is why the Abridged version is but a teaser. An appetiser of sorts or a little more.

 

He is serving main courses aplenty. As if in an assembly line. Power to his being. Power to his incredible versatility. Madras High Court can feel proud. Despite all my misgivings over all things Collegium, as a constitutionally contemplated institution, one is grateful for the  no small mercy of this gentleman judge’s elevation. Power to him. Not so much Power to Collegium, of course.

 

( Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)