Court Stops Two Former SpiceJet Employees From Disclosing Information

Employees work inside a travel agency office besides a model of a SpiceJet aircraft in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad February 14, 2014. SpiceJet Ltd, India's fourth-biggest airline by market share, reported a quarterly loss mainly due to higher fuel costs and a weak local currency. REUTERS/Amit Dave (INDIA - Tags: TRANSPORT BUSINESS)

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has restrained two ex-employees of budget carrier SpiceJet from disclosing confidential information about it to any of its competitors or any other third party on the plea of the airline which had sought to stop them from joining any of its rivals.

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw issued the direction to Saptarshi Bose and Santosh Kumar Singh, who were general manager and deputy GM of the revenue management respectively, but said the damages of Rs. two crore claimed from them by the airline were in excess.

The court also made it clear that “the said injunction will not come in the way of the defendant in each case (Bose and Singh) taking up employment with any competitor airline”.

The court issued summons to them and also sought their response on SpiceJet’s civil suits against them by the next date of hearing before the Joint Registrar on September 27.

In its suits, SpiceJet has sought directions from the court restraining the two former employees from taking up employment with any third party, including a competitor airline, without serving the notice period to it.

Apart from that it has also sought to stop them from revealing any confidential information of the airline to any competitor, from approaching any of its clients or customers, and from acting as its agent or representative.

SpiceJet had also sought recovery of damages of Rs. two crore from each of the two ex-employees.

The court, however, said, “It appears that the damages cannot be in excess of the notice period and can be limited thereto and the claim for damages of Rs. two crores is in excess. As far as the damages, if any which may be suffered by the plaintiff in future, the cause of action therefor, as per the plaint, has not accrued till now.”