Delhi High Court – Orders
Xx vs Yy on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 745/2025, I.A. 17720-17726/2025 & I.A. 17937-
17938/2025
XX .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Ms. Nancy
Roy and Mr. Lalit Alley, Advs
versus
YY .....Defendant
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 30.07.2025
I.A. 17722/2025
1. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under
Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) [as
amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (‘Commercial Courts Act‘)]
read with Section 151 CPC, within thirty (30) days.
2. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents will file the
same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘DHC Rules’).
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 1 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 17723/2025
5. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the Plaintiff seeking
exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.
6. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent
interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini
Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi1, exemption from the requirement of pre-
institution mediation is granted to the plaintiff.
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 17724/2025 (seeking exemption from advance service)
8. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner, the
exemption from effecting advance service upon the Defendants in granted.
9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 17725/2025
10. The present application is filed under Section 151 seeking to mask the
identities of parties to the suit.
11. It is submitted that the Plaintiff apprehends that upon discovering the
Plaintiff’s name in the listed matter, the infringer might destroy the evidence
and withdraw all the infringing information, and such disclosure would
defeat the purpose of the captioned suit.
12. Thus, it is submitted that till the Local Commission is executed, the
identities of the parties may not be reflected in the Cause List and the
identities of the parties be masked and only be reflected as XX v. YY.
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 2 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
13. Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that
the identity of the parties shall be masked till the execution of the Local
Commission, which shall be done within a period of two (2) weeks, from
today.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands disposed
of.
I.A. 17726/2025
15. In view of the prayers made in the application, the Plaintiff is granted
permission to file the documents, mentioned at paragraph 4 of the
application, in a separate index and in sealed cover to be made available
only to the Court. The same be kept in the safe custody of the learned
Registrar General.
16. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
I.A. 17938/2025
17. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order I Rules 10
CPC praying for impleadment of Plaintiff’s Indian Subsidiary Neonscreens
Private Limited as proforma Defendant No. 7.
18. In view of the averments made in the application, the prayer seeking
impleadment of proforma Defendant No. 7 deems necessary to this Court,
accordingly the application is allowed.
19. The amended memo of parties filed with the application is taken on
record.
I.A. 17937/2025
20. This is application filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC seeking amendment of plaint.
1
(2024) 5 SCC 815
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 3 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
21. The Plaintiff is granted liberty to amend the plaint only to the extent
the amendments sought at paragraph 10 of the application.
22. The amended plaint shall be filed by the Plaintiff within three (3)
days.
23. With the aforesaid directions, the application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 745/2025
24. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent
injunction and damages for infringement of copyright, breach of confidential
information and unfair competition.
25. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
26. Summons be issued to the Defendant(s) by all permissible modes on
filing of process fee. Affidavit(s) of service be filed within two (2) weeks.
27. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed
within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The
Defendant(s) shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents
filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be
taken on record.
28. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty (30)
days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication(s) shall be
accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/denial in respect of the documents
filed by Defendant(s), failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on
record.
29. The parties shall file all original documents in support of their
respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case parties are
placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession,
its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 4 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
also be filed with the pleadings.
30. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to
an order of costs against the concerned party.
31. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance
with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
32. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service
and pleadings, marking of exhibits and admission/denial of documents on
01.09.2025.
33. List before the Court on 15.12.2025.
I.A. 17720/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC)
34. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking ex-
parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants alleging that the
Defendants have unlawfully copied and exploited its proprietary NEON
software platform, including its source code, user interface, and other
intellectual properties, leading to public confusion and damage to the
Plaintiff’s goodwill.
35. Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned senior counsel states that the Plaintiff
has operations in Arizona and India, and specializes in customer experience
technology, offering cloud-based digital signage and marketing solutions
through its software platform NEON, which includes its website and mobile
application. He states that presently the company operates in India via its
subsidiary i.e., Neonscreens Private Limited/Defendant No. 7.
35.1. He states that Plaintiff has exclusive ownership of the NEON
platform’s source code and related materials under both U.S. and Indian
copyright laws, claiming absolute rights that protect it from unauthorized
reproduction or adaptation. He states that the first version of the code for
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 5 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
this platform was developed by the founder2 of the Plaintiff. He states that
the Plaintiff is the first owner and exclusive copyright holder of the software
comprising the source code, system architecture, associated user interface
and manuals.
35.2. He states that the company has invested heavily in marketing and
promoting the platform which expenditure for the F.Y. 2025 was 304,115
USD. He states that the worldwide revenue for the F.Y. 2025 was
1,225,010.92 USD, establishing a strong brand identity associated with
Plaintiff’s services.
35.3. He states that Plaintiff’s association with the Defendants began in the
year 2021. He refers to the work contract dated 01.06.2021 executed with
Defendant No. 3 i.e., a partnership firm of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He states
that on the representations of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, Plaintiff engaged
Defendant No. 3 as its full-time development agency in India to maintain the
original code and develop the additional products and features. He states that
this agreement dated 01.06.2021 was extended on 01.09.2023 and was
finally terminated in December 2024.
35.4. He states that the Defendants, particularly those affiliated with the
development agency Defendant No. 3 (i.e., Logical Loop), had direct access
to Plaintiff’s sensitive proprietary information, including trade secrets and
client data.
35.5. He states that the Plaintiff with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 incorporated
the Indian subsidiary i.e., Defendant No. 7 on 04.08.2022, with Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 as its directors.
35.6. He states that following the establishment of Plaintiff’s Indian
2
Mr. Eli Chmouni
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 6 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
subsidiary, several work contract(s) were signed with the Defendants,
outlining their roles and responsibilities; these contracts included clauses
that affirmed the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights to any intellectual property
created during their engagement. He states that these work contract clauses
stipulate confidentiality, non-solicitation and acknowledge the IP rights of
the Plaintiff.
35.7. He states that in December 2024 Plaintiff had invited Defendant Nos.
1 and 2 to USA, where crucial facts pertaining to product development,
operating budget and growth plan were shared with the said Defendants.
35.8. He refers to the Intercompany Service Agreement dated 01.01.2025
executed between Plaintiff and its Indian Subsidiary i.e., Defendant No. 7
represented by Defendant No. 1. He states that clause 4 of the said
agreement acknowledges the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff in
the NEON Platform.
35.9. He states that as Directors of Plaintiff’s Indian subsidiary, Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 were playing a leadership role and had full access to strategic
thinking, business plan, forecasts, trade secrets, processes, data, software
programs, source codes, object codes, know how, inventions and operational
plans, customer lists, pricing and practices of the Plaintiff, apart from all other
proprietary and confidential information of the Plaintiff’s business.
35.10. He states that the present suit involves disputes with individuals who
are the ex-employees and/or Directors of the Plaintiff’s Indian
subsidiary/Defendant No. 7. He states that Defendant no. 1 is the current
Director of the Defendant No. 7. Defendant no. 2 is the ex-director of the
Defendant No. 7 and Defendant No. 4 is the ex-employee of the Defendant
No. 7.
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 7 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
35.11. He states that on 19.05.2025, Eli Chmouni, CEO of Plaintiff
company, received a whistleblower tip alleging that several former
employees (Defendants) had created a competing app called ‘Opnity’,
identical to Plaintiff’s NEON application, by stealing its source code.
35.12. He states that an internal investigation confirmed these allegations,
revealing that the Defendants had established Defendant No. 5/Opnity
Software Pvt. Ltd. while violating their contractual obligations with
Plaintiff. He states that this new company shared the same address with
Plaintiff’s Indian subsidiary/Defendant No. 7, and key individuals among
the defendants were found to be directors.
35.13. He states that Defendant No. 5 is an entity incorporated with
Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as its subscribers and shareholders. He states that
Defendant No. 2 and the mother of Defendant No. 1 are the current
Directors of Defendant No. 5.
35.14. He states that the ‘Opnity’ app launched on 17.04.2025, shows
significant similarities to Neon’s platform, including design and
functionality, and had garnered over 100 downloads.
35.15. He states that Plaintiff engaged an independent third-party software
auditing service, Augment Code, which concluded that the ‘Opnity’
application is essentially a direct copy of the Neon Screens codebase, with
minimal modifications intended to conceal the copying, establishing a 96%
similarity.
35.16. He states that the audit revealed that the Defendants copied not only
the software but also the client database, allowing them to operate 1,500
screens associated with NEON’s clients; the evidence suggests a calculated
effort to misappropriate NEON’s intellectual property, infringing Plaintiff’s
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 8 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
copyrights under the Copyright Act 1957.
35.17. He states that Defendant No. 2 resigned as a Director of Defendant
No. 7 in mid-April 2025, but this was not communicated to the Plaintiff until
28.04.2025; during this time, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly violated
their Non-Disclosure Agreement obligations by competing with the Plaintiff
through the establishment of Defendant No. 5, which launched the ‘Opnity’
mobile application on 17.04.2025.
35.18. He states that Defendant No. 2, now a Director at Defendant No. 5,
retains a copy of the Plaintiff’s source code, further violating NDA terms;
additionally, Defendant No. 4, influenced by Defendants 1 and 2, resigned
from the Indian subsidiary to join Defendant No. 5, contributing to the
development of ‘Opnity’ instead of supporting the Plaintiff’s business.
35.19. He states that the Plaintiff has observed a decline in their platform
usage and suspects that the defendants are actively replacing their services
with ‘Opnity’, leading to significant concerns about the misuse of trade
secrets and breach of fiduciary duties.
35.20. He states that since March 2025, Defendant No. 1, who is managing
operations at the Plaintiff’s subsidiary i.e., Defendant No. 7, has stopped all
payments due under the Intercompany Service Agreement, claiming cash
flow issues, however, evidence indicates that Defendant No. 1 has been re-
directing funds owed to the Plaintiff towards developing the competing
‘Opnity’ application.
35.21. He states that it is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are
allegedly diverting clients to ‘Opnity’, receiving payments through its
accounts while failing to disclose financial information required by the
agreement.
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 9 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
35.22. He states that the Plaintiff has initiated an investigation into
operations at the office of the Indian subsidiary Defendant No. 7, now
reportedly operating as Opnity Software Private Limited, and fears evidence
destruction. The Plaintiff argues that these actions breach their contractual
obligations and threaten their business viability, necessitating urgent judicial
intervention
35.23. He states that defendants are connected through their business
activities and are violating its rights, potentially jeopardizing confidential
information.
35.24. He states that despite the Defendant’s contractual obligations to
maintain confidentiality and not solicit clients or employees, they allegedly
misappropriated funds and diverted clients to a competing application,
‘Opnity’ undermining the Plaintiff’s business operations.
35.25. He states that Plaintiff will file before this Court in a sealed cover all
its proprietary information including the source code, in a sealed cover
within the time granted for verification and comparison with the data
retrieved from the Defendants.
36. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff.
37. The Plaintiff has contended that it received a whistleblower tip about
launching of a competing ‘Opnity’ platform which has striking similarities
with its platform ‘NEON’. It is stated that the investigation has confirmed
that Defendant No. 5 is the owner of the infringing platform ‘Opnity’, which
is operated and controlled by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. It is stated that
Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had contractual relationships with the Plaintiff
expressly acknowledging the IP rights of the Plaintiff in the NEON platform
and the software used for creating the said platform. It is stated that the act
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 10 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 is in breach of their contractual agreements and
also their fiduciary relationship qua the Plaintiff. It is stated that the singular
fact that Defendant No. 5 is operating from the premises of Plaintiff’s Indian
subsidiary i.e., Defendant No. 7 evidences the blatant diversion of the
proprietary information by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. It is stated Defendants
have misappropriated the Plaintiff’s trade secrets and proprietary information
pertaining to NEON platform.
38. It is stated that the ‘Opnity’ App launched by Defendant No. 5 and
dashboard of this App bear striking similarities to the NEON Platform,
including identical texts, layouts, colour schemes, and welcome messages.
The Plaintiff has relied upon an independent assessment by Augment Code,
a third-party software auditing service, which has concluded that the
‘Opnity’ application is a direct copy of the NEON Screens codebase,
exhibiting a 96% similarity, with only minimal modifications made to
obscure the copying.
39. It is stated that Defendant No. 5 has been incorporated while
Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had existing relationship with the Plaintiff. This
Court’s attention has also been drawn to the clauses of the work contracts
executed with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which acknowledge IP rights and
confidentiality. The common addresses of Defendant No. 5 and Defendant
No. 7 lends credence to the submission of the Plaintiff, that the competing
app ‘Opnity’ is being hosted from the address of Defendant No. 7.
40. The Plaintiff has expressed apprehension that the Defendants are
likely to upload the source code of NEON platform upon receiving
summons so as to cause harm to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks ex-parte
ad-interim relief inter-alia specifically concerning the continuing
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 11 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
unauthorized copying of its source code and its dissemination.
41. In these facts, given the gravity of these violations, given the privity
of contract between the Plaintiff and Defendants as well as their access to
the proprietary information of the Plaintiff is established from the record.
Given the striking similarity between the NEON platform and ‘Opnity’
platform, a prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff.
42. This Court is of the considered view that at this stage, the ex-parte
intervention is deemed necessary only to protect the Plaintiff’s intellectual
proprietary rights including the source code in question and prevent further
harm. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants. Irreparable harm would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte
ad-interim injunction, as sought, is not granted in favour of the Plaintiff.
43. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, an ad interim injunction
order is passed in the following terms:
a. The Defendants are restrained from using, transferring, sharing,
further copying, dealing in any manner whatsoever Plaintiff’s
proprietary software platform/trade-secrets/inventions/discoveries/
proprietary and confidential information such as its source code,
client information, client requirements, strategies, project
developments, desk consoles, control room lay outs/computer files
etc., as accessed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from the Plaintiff.
b. The Defendants are restrained from using/copying the
photographs/layouts/drawings/short description/contents and/or
any other information in any manner whatsoever amounting to
infringement of the Plaintiff s copyright.
c. The Defendants more specifically Defendant No. 5 is restrained
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 12 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
from soliciting the plaintiff s clients.
44. Issue notice to the Defendants through all modes.
45. Reply be filed within two (2) weeks. The Defendants will file in
sealed cover all relevant information with respect to the source code for
developing its app ‘Opnity’. The Defendants will also disclose the list of its
existing clients and identify therein the clients which were earlier being
serviced by Defendant no. 7 and/or the Plaintiff.
46. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.
47. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done within a period
of two (2) weeks from today.
48. The Plaintiff is directed to deposit its source code and all other
proprietary data/information shared with the Defendants, which it now seeks
to recover by way of local commission, in a sealed cover within one (1)
week.
49. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service
and pleadings on 01.09.2025.
50. List before the Court on 15.12.2025.
I.A. 17721/2025 (Seeking appointment of Local Commissioner)
51. The Plaintiff prays for the appointment of Local Commissioners.
52. Learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff states that Plaintiff
apprehends that upon service of the suit paperbook, Defendants will upload
the Plaintiff’s proprietary source code in open repository thereby causing
irreparable injury. He has relied upon the ad-interim order of a Coordinate
Bench dated 14.03.2023 passed in CS(COMM) 143/2023 titled as X v. Y for
pressing these reliefs for appointment of a Local Commissioner at the ex-
parte stage.
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 13 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
53. This Court has perused the reliefs sought in the application and finds
that the reliefs therein are sought not only for retrieving the Plaintiffs
proprietary software and data, but also assets and information pertaining to
Defendant No. 5 and Defendant No. 7.
54. At the ex-parte stage, this Court is inclined to grant limited mandate
to the Local Commissioner for executing the Local Commission for securing
the Plaintiff’s proprietary software and data, which includes all information
provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendants as well as the data developed by
Defendants for the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 7 for the NEON platform;
and no further.
55. In view of the assertions made in the plaint and as noticed above, a
prima facie case for appointment of Local Commissioners is made out so as
to avoid rendering the suit infructuous by destruction or illegal
dissemination and use of the Plaintiff’s proprietary data. As such this Court
appoints the following Local Commissioners to visit the Defendants various
premises as mentioned in the Application:
Sr. PARTICULARS NAME OF ADVOCATES
No. APPOINTED AS LOCAL
COMMISSIONER
1. Yash Deepak Parekh Karan Khetani
1, Opera Bunglow, Umrigar Contact no.- 8005690772
School, Enroll. No.- R/1963/2019
Umra, Surat, Gujarat-395007 Email Id- [email protected]
2. Yash Deepak Parekh, Apurv Tripathi
M/s Logical Loop and Opnity Contact no.- 9910523322
Software Private Limited Enroll. No.- D/727/2011
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 14 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
1st floor, Office No. 109, Email Id- ………
S.N.S Platina MoujeVesu,
Sub District Majura, Surat,
Gujarat, India -395007
3. Manthan Rageshkumar Shah Rahul Krishna Sharma
A-201, Malabar Hill Apartment, Contact no.- 9560562715
Somnath Mahadev Road, Umra Enroll. No.- D/6445/2023
Surat-395007 Email- Id-
4. Upamanyu Bhattacharya Anirudh Bhatt
302, Sagar Shrot CHS 161/BS Contact no.- 9999902949
Versova Link Road, Andheri Enroll. No.- D-2552/17
West, Mumbai, Email Id- [email protected]
Maharashtra, India -400053.
56. The Plaintiff is permitted to depute one technical expert with each
Local Commissioner in order to execute the local commissions. Two
representatives of the Plaintiff, which may include a lawyer, are permitted to
accompany the Local Commissioners.
57. The Local Commissioners will be empowered to carry out execution
in terms of prayer clauses (B), (G) and (O) and only with respect to the
proprietary data of the Plaintiff available in the devices of the Defendants.
The prayer clauses (B), (G) and (O) are reproduced as under, for the
convenience of the Local Commissioners:
“B. The Local Commissioners accompanied by Plaintiffs’
representatives/counsels and IT experts hired by the Plaintiff, be
empowered to simultaneously enter the aforementioned premises of the
Defendants and/or any other premises, which may be disclosed /
located at the time of the Local Commission, where the Defendants are
present and/or carrying out its illegal activities and/or where theCS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 15 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
Plaintiff believes the Plaintiff’s confidential / proprietary data is being
stored/ copied, saved, 96 accessed or made available such as ancillary
premises warehouses or rooms;
G. The Local Commissioners, with the assistance of the Plaintiff’s
representatives/ counsels and IT experts hired by the Plaintiff, be
empowered to search, scan and make mirror copies of the computer
systems, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, TV screens, media devices,
cloud storage, storage devices including hard disks, USB drives, disks,
dongles or any other electronic devices /storage device or storage
interface found at the Defendants’ premises where the Plaintiff’s data
such as intellectual property and confidential information may be
stored, saved, or accessed and direct the Defendants to hand over any
other device containing such intellectual property and confidential
information of the Plaintiff to the Local Commissioner and the same be
removed / deleted from the electronic devices of the Defendants;
O. If, due to the Defendants’ non‑cooperation or paucity of time or
technological or logistical difficulties or any other hindrance, the
copying of electronic devices, documents, or data or any of the
aforesaid acts cannot be completed on the day of the local commission,
the Local Commissioners be empowered to seize all such devices,
documents, or data and retain them in their custody/ and/or file the
same under a sealed cover before this Hon’ble Court;”
58. In addition, the Local Commissioner will be entitled to obtain copies
of any physical documents found at the premises, which are identified as the
proprietary data of the Plaintiff.
59. The scope of the local commission has been set out at paragraph nos.
57 and 58. The Local Commissioners shall execute the commission in terms
of aforesaid directions.
60. Upon being requested, the concerned jurisdictional police authorities,
the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and/or the Station
House Officer (‘SHO’), shall render necessary cooperation for execution of
the commissions, as per this order. The Local Commissioners are also
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 16 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
permitted to break open the locks, with the help of the local police, if access
to the premises, is denied to the Commissioners in terms of prayer clauses
(Q), (R) and (S) of this application which read as under:
“Q. The Local Commissioners be further empowered with the
assistance of the Police, to break open the locks and / or seal in 104
case any of the premises of the Defendants, as mentioned in the cause
title and / or any other premises as disclosed during the said local
commission, is found locked and / or sealed.
R. The Local Commissioners be authorized, on a short notice, to seek
assistance and protection of the Police in the execution of the
Commission at any given point of time. Appropriate directions may
also be issued to the local SHO(s), having the jurisdiction over the
Defendants’ address as mentioned or any other person of the same or
similar rank and designation / in charge and in current position and a
female constable, for providing appropriate assistance and protection to
each of the learned Local Commissioners, Plaintiffs’ representatives
and technical experts as may be required for the Commission;
S. The Local Commissioners further be empowered to not to disclose
any specific details with respect to the order of this Hon’ble Court,
subject matter of the suit to the Police for the purpose of the
commission. Further, the Local Commissioners be empowered to seek
assistance of the Police for purpose of carrying out the commission
without providing any reasoning for the actions.”
61. The Local Commissioners are permitted to take photographs and
videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed
appropriate in terms of prayer clause (P) which reads as under:
“P. The Local Commissioners be empowered to take photographs and
video recording of the process of the local commission as conducted on
the Defendants’ premises and/or any other premises found during the
commission;”
62. The Local Commissioners, while executing the commissions, shall
ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendants, except
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 17 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23
for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall
be executed in a peaceful manner.
63. Copy of the order and complete paper book shall be served by the
Local Commissioners upon the Defendants at the time of execution of
commissions.
64. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local
Commissioners to the Defendants.
65. The fees of the Local Commissioners is fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- each;
excluding out of pocket expenses, including travel, accommodation etc.,
which is to be borne by the Plaintiff.
66. The Local Commissions shall be executed within two (2) weeks. The
report of the Local Commissioners shall be filed within two (2) weeks
thereafter.
67. The order passed today, shall not be uploaded for a period of three (3)
weeks for enabling the execution of the commissions.
68. In terms of the foregoing, the present application stands disposed of.
69. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 30, 2025/msh/AM
CS(COMM) 745/2025 Page 18 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:23