Synopsis

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that its former employees violated non‑disclosure agreements (NDAs) and misappropriated confidential information to set up a competing company (defendant no.1). The plaintiff obtained an ad‑interim injunction on 04.04.2022. Later, the court vacated the injunction on 17.08.2022, noting that several defendants had not signed the NDAs. The plaintiff withdrew the suit on 20.03.2023. The defendant no.1 filed an application under Section 340 CrPC alleging perjury and fabrication of documents. The High Court allowed the application, holding that the plaintiff had made false averments, filed forged NDAs, and misled the court to obtain an injunction. The court directed the Registrar General to file a complaint under Section 195 CrPC for offences under Sections 193, 209, 463, 471 IPC and other relevant provisions.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Crl.m.a. 14926 of 2023 in cs(os) 190 of 2022

Manipal business solutions private limited (plaintiff) vs. Aurigain consultants private limited and ors (defendants)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice subramonium prasad

Date: 4th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of criminal procedure, 1973 – section 195(1)(b) (prosecution for offences against public justice), section 340 (procedure for complaints in respect of offences affecting administration of justice)

• Indian penal code, 1860 – sections 193 (punishment for false evidence), 209 (false claim in court), 463 (forgery), 471 (using forged document as genuine)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order xxxix rules 1, 2, 4 (injunction)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a plaintiff who makes fals

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.