Reply O39R4 Arsalan

BEFORE ZAFAR IQBAL SIAL, LEARNED CJ, LAHORE
M/s Abacus Consulting Technology (Private) Limited
VERSUS
Mr. Arsalan Zaheer Dar and another
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/DEFENDANT NO.1 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 AND SECTION
151 CPC ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT COMPANY

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
REPLY ON MERITS:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied for want of knowledge.
3. That the allegations leveled against the Plaintiff in para under reply are
vehemently denied. It is submitted that there is no infringement of fundamental
rights of Defendant No.1 as alleged. It is specifically denied that the employment
contract is void for any alleged reason. In this regard, it is submitted that the
employment contract has been accepted and duly signed by the Defendant No.1.
Moreover, the terms and conditions of his service were governed by the said
employment contract and he has been receiving all kinds of benefits under the
same contract. The Defendant No.1 should have raised objection, if any, against
the employment contract at the time of acceptance. Defendant No.1 cannot
wriggle out of the terms of the employment contact at this juncture on the pretext
that it has now become void on account of its being in restraint of trade.
4. That the averments contained in para under reply being baseless are vehemently
denied.
5. That the allegations leveled against the Plaintiff in para under reply are
vehemently denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff had been involved in
any alleged nefarious activities or the instant suit has been filed with ill intentions,
mala fide or to blackmail the Defendants. The Defendant No.2 is put to strict
proof in this regard.
6. That the averments contained in para under reply are vehemently denied. In this
regard, it is submitted that the negative covenant of the permanent employment
contract sought to be enforced by the Plaintiff cannot in any manner be termed to
be infringing the fundamental rights of the Defendant No.1. Without prejudice to
any of the rights of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Plaintiff has not prayed
from this Learned Court to restrain the Petitioner/Defendant to carry on any trade,
business or profession. The Plaintiff has only prayed to restrain the
Petitioner/Defendant No.1 to carry on a competitive job/business with the
Defendant No.2 that is in accordance with permanent employment contract.
Annexure A and B annexed with the suit make it palpably clear that Defendant
No.2 is engaged in the competing business against the Plaintiff Company.
Therefore, the Defendant No.1 was under an obligation to observe the negative
covenant in the employment contract and breach on his part has constrained the
Plaintiff to seek its enforcement through this Learned Court.
7. That the averments contained in para under reply are denied for the reason that
they do not apply to the instant case.
8. That the averments contained in para under reply except admissions are
vehemently denied. In this regard it is submitted that Defendant No.1 did not hand
over the SAS CDs and other material subject matter of the suit. The Plaintiff is
put to strict proof in this regard. Defendant No.1 in this regard has relied upon his
own email that cannot be a proof of handing over the suit material. Contents of
para 6 above are reiterated here.
In continuance of the above averments, it is submitted that the restraining order
dated 09-05-2005 passed by this Learned Court is very much apt to the fact and
circumstances of the case and this Learned Court has been gracious enough to
safeguard the interest of the Plaintiff Company against wanton breach of the
negative covenant of the permanent employment contract by the Defendant No.1.
The mala fide intentions of Defendant No.1 is evident from his sudden departure
from the Plaintiff Company and subsequently joining Defendant No.2
immediately afterwards. Such blatant act, whereby a person after acquiring
advanced knowledge and skill at the expense of one person subsequently joins
another person in breach of the ethics and morality, should be reprimanded by the
courts of law by passing akin restraining orders against such persons. In view of
foregoing, it is vehemently denied that the restraining order has been maliciously
obtained.
9. That the submissions contained in para under reply are specifically denied. The
Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 is put to strict proof in this regard. In addition,
the Respondent/Plaintiff is not exclusively seeking the recovery of material
mentioned in para under reply but also seeking the enforcement of the negative
covenant of the employment contract.
10. That the averments contained in para under reply except admissions are
vehemently denied. The Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 is put to strict proof in
this regard. The Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 took away with him the suit
material at the time of his departure and it can very well be anticipated that he is
using such material for commercial purposes and deriving gains from its use. It is
specifically denied that the Plaintiff has leveled any vexatious, baseless and
frivolous allegations against Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1. Furthermore, the
Petitioners have admitted in sub-para (iii) that Petitioner NO.2/Defendant No.2 is
engaged in a competitive business against the Plaintiff, which is sufficient to
establish that this Learned Court has rightly granted the interim injunction against
the Petitioners. It is specifically denied that the Respondent/Plaintiff acted
unlawfully, illegally or in vexatious manner or the suit has been filed to blackmail
the Petitioners/Defendants. Contents of reply to para 8 above are reiterated here.
IN view of foregoing submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the instant application

having no merits may kindly be dismissed with costs.
Respondent/Plaintiff
through
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA
MA(Cambridge) LL.M (Harvard)
Advocate High Court
WASIF MAJEED
Advocate
33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.

Reply O39R4 Arsalan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply O39R4 Arsalan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply O39R4 Arsalan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE ZAFAR IQBAL SIAL, LEARNED CJ, LAHORE

M/s Abacus Consulting Technology (Private) Limited

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT COMPANY

IN view of foregoing submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the instant application

You might also like