On Thursday, Bennett Coleman and Company Limited (BCCL), owner of the “Times Now” Channel, filed a suit against Arnab Goswami’s “Republic TV” in the Delhi High Court for violation of contract of employment and infringement of intellectual property..The Plaintiffs have claimed that Arnab and his team are using intellectual property, which they had acquired during the course of their employment with TIMES NOW and which exclusively belonged to the Plaintiffs..A few clippings of the telecast by “Republic TV” regarding the circumstances of Sunanda Pushkar’s death were also played before the bench of Justice Manmohan..Appearing for the Plaintiffs, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar stated that the Defendants must not act contrary to the clauses of the contract of employment. He also submitted that the Plaintiffs spoke to Arnab regarding the same issue but got no respite..“He is an ex-employee running amok.”.Nayyar also mentioned that the Plaintiffs had already filed a police complaint in Mumbai under sections 378, 379, 403, 405, with sections 406, 409, 411, 414 and 418 of the IPC, besides Section 66-B, 72 and 72-A of the IT Act, alleging theft, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property and infringement of intellectual property..Justice Manmohan issued summons to the Defendants and observed that it is well settled that an employee has to maintain confidentiality after he leaves the employment and must act in good faith. He also observed that misuse and misappropriation of trade information would amount to infringement..However, he stated that at this preliminary stage, he cannot proceed against the Defendants without hearing them and that the evidence produced before the Court was not sufficient. He also questioned the Plaintiffs as to why they had not given a notice to the Defendants before marching to court..Nayyar vehemently pleaded that there must be some direction to the Defendants, to not violate the clauses of the contract..However, Justice Manmohan did not capitulate and maintained that if it is subsequently proven that there was misuse of data by the Defendants, then appropriate relief would be granted..He also questioned the Plaintiffs as to why they had not aired these stories themselves even though they had the information, allegedly used by the Defendants, for over two years..Justice Manmohan stated that these stories were of national interest and public disclosure of such stories is very important..The matter will be next heard on May 26.
On Thursday, Bennett Coleman and Company Limited (BCCL), owner of the “Times Now” Channel, filed a suit against Arnab Goswami’s “Republic TV” in the Delhi High Court for violation of contract of employment and infringement of intellectual property..The Plaintiffs have claimed that Arnab and his team are using intellectual property, which they had acquired during the course of their employment with TIMES NOW and which exclusively belonged to the Plaintiffs..A few clippings of the telecast by “Republic TV” regarding the circumstances of Sunanda Pushkar’s death were also played before the bench of Justice Manmohan..Appearing for the Plaintiffs, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar stated that the Defendants must not act contrary to the clauses of the contract of employment. He also submitted that the Plaintiffs spoke to Arnab regarding the same issue but got no respite..“He is an ex-employee running amok.”.Nayyar also mentioned that the Plaintiffs had already filed a police complaint in Mumbai under sections 378, 379, 403, 405, with sections 406, 409, 411, 414 and 418 of the IPC, besides Section 66-B, 72 and 72-A of the IT Act, alleging theft, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property and infringement of intellectual property..Justice Manmohan issued summons to the Defendants and observed that it is well settled that an employee has to maintain confidentiality after he leaves the employment and must act in good faith. He also observed that misuse and misappropriation of trade information would amount to infringement..However, he stated that at this preliminary stage, he cannot proceed against the Defendants without hearing them and that the evidence produced before the Court was not sufficient. He also questioned the Plaintiffs as to why they had not given a notice to the Defendants before marching to court..Nayyar vehemently pleaded that there must be some direction to the Defendants, to not violate the clauses of the contract..However, Justice Manmohan did not capitulate and maintained that if it is subsequently proven that there was misuse of data by the Defendants, then appropriate relief would be granted..He also questioned the Plaintiffs as to why they had not aired these stories themselves even though they had the information, allegedly used by the Defendants, for over two years..Justice Manmohan stated that these stories were of national interest and public disclosure of such stories is very important..The matter will be next heard on May 26.