Holding a Former Employee to His Word: Legalfoxes Secures an Interim Injunction Enforcing a Client Non-Compete
The Patiala House Courts restrain a former employee from dealing with his ex-employer’s clients, holding that a signed offer letter and an unchallenged three-year restrictive covenant were enough to warrant interim protection even as the defendant scrambles to walk the order back.
Our clients, Accudata Analytics Pvt. Ltd. and its director, sued a former employee, Saurabh Mahajan, after he resigned from the company on 10 September 2024 and, on the plaintiffs’ case, began dealing directly with a client of the company in direct breach of the restrictive covenant in his own offer letter. The offer letter, dated 31 January 2022 and admittedly signed by Mr. Mahajan, barred him from working or dealing with any client of the company for three years after leaving the job.
Alongside the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction to stop Mr. Mahajan from continuing to deal with the company’s clients while the case was pending. That application had been pending for some time; the defendant had already filed his reply, and on 11 September 2025 the Court took it up for final arguments on the strength of the pleadings and the material already on record.
An Admission That Did the Heavy Lifting
Representing Accudata, Ld. Counsel argued that the case turned on a simple point: Mr. Mahajan did not deny signing the offer letter of 31 January 2022, and he did not dispute that he had been an employee of the company. His only defence raised through the proxy counsel appearing for him that morning was that the offer letter had technically been signed between him and the company’s director in a personal capacity, rather than the company itself.
The Court did not find that distinction persuasive on the record before it. Weighing the submissions of both sides and noting that the defendant had not denied his employment with the plaintiff company, the Court held that the balance favoured enforcing the restrictive covenant as it stood, at least on an interim basis.
What the Court Held
“Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the fact that it is not stated on part of the defendant that he was not employee of the plaintiff, defendant is restrained to continue any work with any of the clients of the plaintiff as per the agreement/offer letter dated 31.01.2022 till further orders.”
The interim order was a clean, immediate win for Accudata: pending trial, Mr. Mahajan is barred from working with any of the company’s clients under the terms of the very offer letter he signed.
A Same-Day Attempt to Walk It Back
The story did not end at the morning hearing. When the matter was taken up again the same afternoon, Mr. Mahajan’s regular counsel, appearing in person for the first time, told the Court that the proxy counsel who had argued the application that morning had not been fully briefed on the facts, and sought recall or amendment of the order just passed. The Court’s response was measured but firm: if the defendant wished to challenge the order, he would need to move an appropriate application under the applicable legal provisions the injunction was not simply going to be undone on an oral request across the same day’s cause list.
The matter has been listed for further proceedings, with the defendant expected to move his Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application and, if he chooses, a formal application to recall or vary the interim order in the meantime.
Why This Result Matters
For employers, the order is a useful reminder that restrictive covenants signed at the start of employment are not easily brushed aside once a dispute arises particularly where the departing employee cannot credibly deny having worked for the company or having signed the document in question. It also underscores a practical litigation point: an application argued by an unbriefed proxy counsel is still a valid hearing, and undoing its outcome requires a proper application, not an after-the-fact objection. For Accudata, the immediate effect is that its client relationships are protected while the underlying suit proceeds to trial.
Firm Legalfoxes Advocates and Consultants
Advocate Mr. Atin Handuja, Founder Managing Partner
Email contact@legalfoxess.com
This case story is shared for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific matter, please consult a qualified advocate.