Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This is a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In short, the plaintiff's case is that (i) At all material times it carried on business as manufacturer and supplier of wagons and coaches. Indian Railways and Ministry of Defence, Government of India, is one of the customers of the plaintiff. It is a reputed concern and has got some goodwill in the business world. Defendant was appointed a Manager (coaches) in the factory of the plaintiff at Titagarh, West Bengal on 25th September, 2007 under a Contract of Employment. (ii) The Contract of Employment contained certain terms and conditions which the defendant was under obligation to follow during his tenure of service with the plaintiff. (iii) The terms and conditions will be apparent from the defendant s Letter of Appointment issued on 22nd October, 2007 as also the joining report dated 16th October, 2007. The defendant accepted the terms and joined the service. (iv) A negative covenant was agreed upon by and between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant would not disclose and/or divulge of any information, knowledge, know-how data, documents, reports, manufacturing process of the plaintiff to any other company and that the said negative covenant is binding on the parties and is enforceable in law. (v) The defendant subsequently was assigned with the work of Deputy Works Manager and he was also sent to the factory of an associate of the plaintiff at Bharatpur, Rajasthan to oversee the manufacturing of wagons and coaches. In course of his employment the defendant came to know all information, know-how data, documents, reports, records and manufacturing process of the plaintiff for wagons and coaches. (vi) All on a sudden, on 30th April, 2010, the defendant issued a letter purporting to be a resignation letter thereby tendering resignation to his services. The said letter was in breach of the Terms of the Contract of Employment and, therefore, was not acceptable by the plaintiff and further that such letter of resignation was actuated by malice and was mala fide. (vii) While tendering resignation on 30th April, 2010, it was alleged by the defendant that the defendant returned all files, documents, business designs as well as computer database of the plaintiff which was entrusted to him. However, such representation was incorrect as no such files. Documents or designs or computer database was returned by the defendant. (viii) On enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had joined a rival company which was engaged in a similar business and manufacturing activities as that of the plaintiff. The factory of the said company is situated at Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The plaintiff, by a letter dated 25th August, 2010, called upon the defendant to comply with the terms of his employment with regard to maintaining secrecy. The defendant, by his letter dated 14th September, 2010, replied to the letter of the plaintiff issued on 25th August, 2010. The defendant admitted that he has joined one M/s. GEW, Bharatpur which is a rival company of the plaintiff. The defendant also accepted and acknowledged the Terms of the Contract which were binding on the defendant. However, the defendant made a wrongful claim for outstanding dues. The defendant issued an e-mail on 14th October, 2010 to the Managing Director of the plaintiff containing defamatory statement. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant through its learned Advocate on 1st November, 2010 and termed that the resignation letter tendered by the defendant is illegal and contrary to the Terms and Conditions of the Letter of Appointment. The plaintiff, therefore, has prayed for the following reliefs : a) Decree for declaration that the letter dated 30th April, 2010 is illegal, null and void; b) Decree for the said letter dated 30th April, 2010, to be adjudged void and delivered up for cancellation; c) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and its servants and agents from disclosing or divulging any information, know-how, data, documents, reports, statements, records, manufacturing process, transactions of the plaintiff to any third party; d) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and its servants and agents from directly or indirectly associating or collaborating with any individual, firm or company or outsiders for taking advantage or allowing to take advantage from the trade and business secrets and information/document of the plaintiff; e) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and its servants and agents from writing any letters or electronic mail messages to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff s employees or to the employees of associate companies of the plaintiff or even general public containing defamatory statement as stated in paragraphs 13 and 17 hereinbefore; f) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from writing any letter or electronic mail messages to the employees of the plaintiff or to its associate companies, or general public; g) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and its servants and agents from defaming the plaintiff in any manner; h) Decree for a sum of Rs.5,80,00,000/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraphs 15 and 21 hereinbefore; i) Alternatively, an enquiry into damages suffered by the plaintiff and decree for such sum as may be found due upon enquiry; j) Injunction; k) Attachment before judgment; l) Receiver; m) Costs; n) Further or other reliefs.
(2.) Summons was duly served. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement to contest the suit. In the written statement, however, there is no claim for counter-claim or set off. In the written statement the defendant has denied his signature on Annexure A to the plaint, that is, the Letter of Appointment (Ext. A). The defendant though filed written statement, did not appear to adduce any evidence in support of his defence.
(3.) By an order dated 20th December, 2016 this Court held that the suit be heard ex parte against the defendant and the matter was directed to be listed on 9th January, 2017 under the heading Ex parte Hearing of the suit . Accordingly, the matter was placed as undefended suit and hearing proceeded in absence of the defendant. The plaintiff has examined one Dinesh Arya to prove the plaint case. The Letter of Appointment dated 22nd October, 2007 has been produced by the plaintiff through the witness and the same has been marked as Exhibit A . The plaintiff has also tendered the joining report of the defendant to show that he joined his service on and from 25th September, 2007, which has been marked as Exhibit B . Contents of email from the defendant addressed to Sri Amar Ghosh and a letter dated 14th September, 2010 originally signed by the defendant addressed to Sri Umesh Choudhary, has been marked as Exhibit D collectively. Plaintiff has also tendered a letter dated 1st November, 2010 addressed to the defendant written by Sri Atanu Raychaudhuri, learned Advocate and has been marked as Exhibit E . The resignation letter (Xerox copy) dated 30th April, 2010 of the defendant has been marked X for identification.;