In particular, in circumstances where an information provider finds a breach of the confidentiality agreement by the recipient of the information, the supplier may apply to the civil court for an injunction against that recipient, pursuant to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Imposing additional conditions: although The Indian courts have largely followed the rule of fairness in the protection of confidential information, the evolution of the case law has not been entirely uniform in this regard. For example, in the case of Emergent Genetics India Private Limited v. Shailendra Shiv10, the Delhi Supreme Court had to consider whether, in the absence of copyright protection, the applicant could enforce an injunction on the grounds that a trade secret and confidential information had been improperly misappropriated by the defendants. Although the Delhi Supreme Court referred to the 3 (three) conditions of a breach of trust remedy, as stated in Coco, while referring to the “quality of trust” of the information to be protected, it attempted to compel the owner of the confidential information to prove that reasonable efforts were made to keep the information confidential11 : …, abuse of the applicant`s material, the applicant`s right in the design and trial proceedings, the applicant`s rights in the model numbers and the violation of … On the threat of losing his job to sign the agreement in question – the agreement in question contains a compromise clause that contains any dispute in the agreement… one of the defendants under the jurisdiction of the Court; (vi) that Defendant No. 1 was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement when he joined the applicant … The Delhi Supreme Court decision in John Richard Brady v. Chemical Process Equipments Private Limited4 (“Brady Case”) is perhaps one of the first cases where the principles of confidentiality obligations are considered in the absence of a contract. The Delhi Supreme Court followed the Saltman engineering case and found that “the law on this subject does not depend on a tacit contract.
It depends on the general principles of justice that those who have received trusted information do not exploit them unfairly. The Delhi Supreme Court held that it was in the interests of justice to prevent the accused from abusing the know-how, specifications, drawings and other technical information about the complainant`s machine “which was entrusted to them in the explicit secrecy that they apparently used as “to go to the detriment of the complainants.” It should also be noted that the remedies mentioned above, with the exception of absence, are means of abolition and are not preventive in nature.