Abhinav Gupta v. JCB India Limited and Ors
In the High Court of Delhi
FAO(OS) 488/2008, 489/2008
Before Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided on September 1, 2010

Relevancy of the case:  The intervention of the Civil court in matters to be adjudicated by the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.

Statutes & Provisions involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 46, 61, 66)
• The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Order VII Rule 11)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondent company is the largest equipment manufacturer in the construction and machinery industry. It sold products under the name of JCB and its logo.
• On the other hand, the appellant worked as a design manager in the respondent company. During the course of his employment, the respondent company did not authorize him to disclose confidential information, drawings, and design plans pertaining to the respondent’s company. Subsequently, the appellant left the respondent company and joined a competitor company.
• By transmitting information from his official email id to his personal email id, the Appellant had allegedly misappropriated confidential data, design, secrets and related information from the Company.
• Therefore, this was a violation of the IT Act and a breach of copyright and confidential information. Hence, the appellant has filed an appeal for a rejection of the plaint under the Civil Procedure Code.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that a civil court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters that an adjudicating officer in a Cyber Appellate Tribunal authorised under IT Act must determine.
• Furthermore, the counsel also contended that the suit must stay until the adjudicating officer decides on the matters relating to IT Act violations.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench observed the lack of jurisdiction of the civil court. It opined that if Civil Procedure Code had overridden the IT act, it would violate the IT act.
• In addition, the bench discerned that the reliefs claimed under Civil Procedure Code depended on the main relief claimed under the IT Act. So, this plaint was liable to be rejected under the grounds mentioned in the Civil Procedure Code.
• However, since the suit was in an early stage where issues had not been framed yet, there was no reason for it to be rejected. Therefore, this deems the prayer of the appellant meritless.

Decision

• The bench dismissed the appeals.

इस केस के सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.