When a former AVANSE Financial Services employee tried to recall an ex parte data-protection injunction, the Bombay High Court has clarified that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC is confined to whether the injunction was obtained through a knowingly false or misleading statement on a material particular. Section 151 inherent powers or liberty to seek recall cannot enlarge that scope into a merits appeal.
The Court found no material suppression by AVANSE. Internal payroll records, individual ESOP allocations, compensation data and business information found on the defendant’s devices were materially different from publicly disclosed data in the prospectus. The forensic report prima facie supported the breach allegations, and the suit was not a fishing inquiry, because AVANSE had already identified the compromised files.
On costs, the Court strongly criticised the defendant’s police complaints against the court-appointed forensic agency and officers executing its order. Calling them vexatious counterblasts, it dismissed the recall application and directed Rs. 2.50 lakhs each to the two armed forces welfare funds within eight weeks, with 8% interest on default.
Briefly, AVANSE Financial Services Ltd. sued its former employee, Arun Kumar Arjunan, alleging unauthorised transfer and downloading of its confidential and proprietary information. The judgment records that he admitted the breaches and refunded Rs. 10.36 lakhs towards his joining bonus and short-term incentive pay.
AVANSE’s internal investigation identified 2,646 copied files, of which 2,266 were stated to contain confidential information. On 6 May 2026, the Court granted ex parte ad interim relief, appointing a Court Receiver and AKS IT Services to mirror the defendant’s devices and conduct a forensic analysis. The defendant subsequently sought dismissal of the suit and recall of that order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor found no material suppression by AVANSE and observed that the information found on the defendant’s devices went substantially beyond publicly available disclosures, which included employee payroll records, individual compensation details, ESOP allocation and vesting data, NRC material and internal business information. The forensic report prima facie supported AVANSE’s allegations.
The Court also rejected the suggestion that the suit was a fishing inquiry, explaining that AVANSE had identified the compromised files; what remained uncertain was their location, storage and the extent of their access, copying or dissemination. It further held that service complied with the timeline expressly permitted by the ex parte order, recognised sealed-cover submission of confidential material in suits of this nature, and rejected the alleged full and final settlement because AVANSE had expressly reserved its rights, including the right to claim damages.
The Court strongly criticised the defendant’s police complaint against the court officers, the appointed forensic agency and an advocate, which characterised the complaint as vexatious and a counterblast against those executing the Court’s order. It observed that any genuine grievance concerning execution should first have been brought before the Court, and held that the defendant’s conduct undermined the sanctity of the judicial process and warranted deterrent costs.
