Dalveer Bhandari,j. ( 1 ) THIS Order shall dispose of application I. A. No. 3214/98 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. In this suit the plaintiffs have also prayed for the grant of an injunction during the pendency of the suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs are engaged in manufacturing, marketing and sale of soft drink beverages, under the trade mark "pepsi" all over the world including India. For the sake of convenience the plaintiffs are jointly referred as "pepsi" and the defendants as "coke". ( 4 ) IT is alleged that the main competitor of Pepsi in the soft drink beverage business is Coke. In India also, the main business rivals of the plaintiffs are the defendants, Coke. It is incorporated in the plaint that the soft drink business worldwide is extremely competitive and the business rivalry between Pepsi and Coke is fairly intense all over. Both the group of companies spend a large amount of money,time and efforts to protect and develop their respective business interests. In India also, both Pepsi and Coke have spent a considerable amount of money on advertising and marketing of their products. ( 5 ) IT is incorporated in the plaint that till recently these actions of aggressive sales, promotion and advertising were within the legal parameters and within acceptable worldwide and Indian marketing practices. However, over the past six months the plaintiffs have found that the defendants have been resorting not only to unethical business practices, but the defendants actions in most cases constitute tortious interference in the business of the plaintiffs. ( 6 ) IT is further mentioned in the plaint that the defendants have entered into a conspiracy to undertake concerted action against the plaintiffs to damage the plaintiffs business interests in an unethical or illegal manner. It is alleged that the defendants are guilty of the tort of conspiracy too. ( 7 ) THE plaintiffs have broadly categorised the illegal and unethical actions of the defendants in six heads, which are reproduced below:- (I) Inducing by unlawful means, groups of key marketing and other strategic employees of the plaintiffs to breach and/or terminate their employment contracts with the plaintiffs and enter into employment contracts with the defendants. ( 7 ) THE plaintiffs have broadly categorised the illegal and unethical actions of the defendants in six heads, which are reproduced below:- (I) Inducing by unlawful means, groups of key marketing and other strategic employees of the plaintiffs to breach and/or terminate their employment contracts with the plaintiffs and enter into employment contracts with the defendants. (II) Inducing by unlawful means, employees of Pepsi s independent bottlers, into breaking/breaching their contracts. (III) Inducing by unlawful means, the independent business consultants under contract with the plaintiffs to break/breach their contracts with the plaintiffs. (IV) Inducing by unlawful means, the distribution partners of the plaintiffs to breach their distribution agreements/arrangements with the plaintiffs and enter into similar agreements/arrangements with the defendants. (V) Inducing by unlawful means, institutional accounts to breach their marketing and sponsorship agreements/arrangements with the plaintiffs and enter into similar agreements/arrangements with the defendants. ( 8 ) IT is alleged that Pepsi started its business operations in India in the year 1990. It is also mentioned that Pepsi had literally commenced its beverages business in India from a scratch. Considerable investments were made to establish its infrastructure, which run into over 300 million U. S. Dollars. It is stated, that earlier the dominant player in the soft drink beverage industry in India was Parle Exports, the owner of trade marks Thums Up, Goldspot, Limca, Bisleri, Rim Zim etc. It is stated that Parle had enjoyed a national market share of about 70% of the soft drink beverage industry. It is stated that Coke s entry strategy into the market was radically different. Coke entered the Indian market by acquiring Parle trademarks, from Parles and subsequently the entire infrastructure associated with the Parle trade mark. It is mentioned that Pepsi s success has been owing to a strong professional, well trained and motivated technical, finance, production and sales team that Pepsi has put together at its various locations all over India. It is alleged that in furtherance to the conspiracy, Coke started approaching the employees of Pepsi with inducements to terminate their existing contracts with Pepsi and enter into an employment contract with Coke. It is further mentioned that in certain cases Coke has successfully approached and induced some of Pepsi s employees into illegally terminating their existing contracts and entering into new employment contracts with Coke. It is further mentioned that in certain cases Coke has successfully approached and induced some of Pepsi s employees into illegally terminating their existing contracts and entering into new employment contracts with Coke. It is also incorporated in the plaint that initially these approaches were sporadic but over the last six months, it is clear that Coke has changed its strategy and has now decided to consciously target and approach the key employees of Pepsi at various locations in India. In the plaint, details of the six officials of Pepsi have been given, who were successfully approached by Coke and induced into terminating their employment contracts and confidentiality undertakings with Pepsi. ( 9 ) IT is incorpor lated in the plaint that in or around December 1997 Pepsi approached one of the Territory Development Manager of the Pepsi in Kanpur, Mr. Kochin Wu. It is mentioned that Coke had approached Mr. Wu with an offer of increasing his salary and emoluments substantially in case he moved over along with his sales team to Coke. It is mentioned that the employment contract, inter alia, contained a provision that the contract can terminated only by a three months notice. The employees have also executed a confidential undertaking in favour of Pepsi, wherein they have undertaken, inter alia, to keep all information,knowledge, data etc. acquired by them during the course of their employment with Pepsi and have also undertaken not to take up any employment with the competitor of Pepsi within one year of leaving Pepsi s employment for any reason whatsoever. ( 10 ) IT is alleged that on 7. 2. 1998,the sales team of Pepsi was given an employment offer and was asked to join Coke immediately. The sales team members individually issued letters of termination of employment to Pepsi. The letters purported to terminate the employment contract forthwith,were not in accordance with the terms of the employment contract, which require a three months termination notice. ( 11 ) FOR various reasons 7 out of 10 sales team members changed their minds and decided to continue to work for Pepsi, and issued letters to Coke stating that they were retracting their acceptances. However, out of the remaining 3 members, including the lead person, Mr. Wu remained with Coke. ( 11 ) FOR various reasons 7 out of 10 sales team members changed their minds and decided to continue to work for Pepsi, and issued letters to Coke stating that they were retracting their acceptances. However, out of the remaining 3 members, including the lead person, Mr. Wu remained with Coke. ( 12 ) FROM the sequence of events Pepsi tried to establish that Coke had entered into a conspiracy with a specific objective to undertake tortious and illegal action against Pepsi and cause loss and damage to it. ( 13 ) IT is also alleged that Coke has also approached several key employees of Pepsi, at Pepsi s various locations and have unabashedly made offers and inducements to their key employees from time to time. It is also alleged that on or about 10. 2. 1998 one Mr. Bipaschit Bose tried to contact many employees of Pepsi and even went to the extent of offering blank cheques, so that they would be induced to terminate their existing contracts with Pepsi and join Coke. In this process Coke has managed to successfully wean away some employees of Pepsi. ( 14 ) IT is also incorporated in the plaint that the soft drink beverage industry depends heavily on a strong, well trained and motivated sales team, because the nature of business requires a constant interaction between the manufacturer and trade, distributors and retail outlets. The trade has to be regularly serviced to ensure adequate supplies of the products and to maintain market share. This onerous responsibility lies with the sales team. Accordingly, in the event Pepsi was to lose the entire sales team as was sought to be achieved by Coke in Kanpur, the loss and damage would be much greater than the mere loss of money spent on training of the sales personnel. The loss would be in terms of loss of time involved in replacing the sales team and consequent loss of business in the meanwhile. ( 15 ) IT is also alleged that Goa Bottling Private Ltd. was earlier the franchisee bottlers of Coke with manufacturing facilities located in Goa and was servicing the Goa territory. The existing franchise contract between Goa Bottling Company and Coke terminated in accordance with the terms thereof on 22. 11. 1997. ( 15 ) IT is also alleged that Goa Bottling Private Ltd. was earlier the franchisee bottlers of Coke with manufacturing facilities located in Goa and was servicing the Goa territory. The existing franchise contract between Goa Bottling Company and Coke terminated in accordance with the terms thereof on 22. 11. 1997. Upon the termination of the existing contract with Coke, Goa Boltling Company commenced production and distribution of Pepsi with effect from 23. 11. 1997. It is also mentioned that the entire sales team of Goa Bottling Company, comprising of 61 sales staff resigned en bloc from the employment with Goa Bottling Company on 21. 11. 1997 and took up employment with Coke and commenced working with Coke immediately. It is alleged that these employees did not give any notice of termination to Goa Bottling Company and their resignation was illegal and contrary to the terms of the employment contract with Goa Bottling Company. It is also incorporated that Coke had contacted each member of the sales team and induced them into illegally terminating their employment contracts with Goa Boltling Company and entering into employment contract with Coke. It is further alleged that Coke was fully aware that after the termination of the franchise agreement between Goa Bottling Company and Coke, Goa Bottling Company intended to manufacture and distribute the Pepsi products. It is alleged that the aforesaid action of Coke was carried out pursuant to a conspiracy to cause injury and prejudice the business of Goa Bottling Company and therefore, jeopardise the business of Pepsi. ( 16 ) IT is also mentioned in the plaint that Pepsi had engaged the services of one 21st Century Media Pvt. Ltd as their sports consultant. It is stated that the Sports Consultant was representing Mr. Javagal Srinath,one of the leading Indian Cricketers and it was intended to sign up Mr. Srinath with Pepsi whereby he would endorse the Pepsi products. But later it transpired that Coke was trying to induce Mr. Srinath into severing his contract with the Sports Consultant. It is also alleged that Coke was successful in inducing Mr. Srinath into signing with Coke,in complete violation of the aforesaid contract. ( 17 ) IT is alleged that in addition to Sports, it is a part of Pepsi s global marketing strategy to market its products through sponsorship of major international and national music events in India. It is also alleged that Coke was successful in inducing Mr. Srinath into signing with Coke,in complete violation of the aforesaid contract. ( 17 ) IT is alleged that in addition to Sports, it is a part of Pepsi s global marketing strategy to market its products through sponsorship of major international and national music events in India. This is in consonance with the worldwide image of the beverage Pepsi being a fun product for the youth. It is stated that Pepsi had entered into an exclusive agreement dated 1. 8. 1996 with music consultant. In or around February 1998 Coke through its representative approached the Music Consultant. It is also alleged that Ms. Apurvi Seth, General Manager (Marketing) of Coke approached the Music Consultant and asked him to terminate his exclusive contract with Pepsi and to start working with Coke. ( 18 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid sequence of events Pepsi tried to make out a case against Coke and submilled that the actions of Coke amounted to tortious interference in the business of Pepsi. Pepsi had also mentioned that Plaintiff No. 3 had an agreement with one Shrinathji Sales for distribution of Pepsi products in various long distance trains, emanating out of Ahmedabad Railway station. It is alleged that in March 1998, the officials of Coke, approached the said distribution partner of Pepsi and offered to pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs plus for the fulfilment of any other requirements of the distribution partner in consideration of the said distribution partner breaking his contract with Pepsi. However, the said distribution partner refused the offer and wrote to Pepsi vide letter dated 9. 3. 1998 informing it of the incident. ( 19 ) IT is stated that Pepsi had an exclusive agreement with Hotel Hyatt Regency of New Delhi, that it would use only the Pepsi products. It was a fixed term contract and the hotel could not terminate the said agreement. It is further stated that at the behest of Coke,hotel Hyatt Regency, terminated the said contract with Pepsi. ( 19 ) IT is stated that Pepsi had an exclusive agreement with Hotel Hyatt Regency of New Delhi, that it would use only the Pepsi products. It was a fixed term contract and the hotel could not terminate the said agreement. It is further stated that at the behest of Coke,hotel Hyatt Regency, terminated the said contract with Pepsi. ( 20 ) ON the strength of the aforesaid sequence of events Pepsi tried to establish a prima facie case that Coke had offered inducements to various persons to breach their existing contracts with Pepsi and prayed that the defendants be restrained from employing in any manner, offering employment to or inducing any employee of Pepsi to breach the existing employment contract and other obligations with Pepsi, or from in any manner interfering with and/or hindering the business of Pepsi through tortious actions and illegal means. ( 21 ) THIS Court issued summons to the defendants. The defendants in their separate written statements denied all averments, contentions and submissions raised in the plaint. A number of preliminary objections were taken such as (i) misjoinder of the plaintiffs and causes of action, (ii) misjoinder of the defendants and causes of action, (iii) non-joinder of necessary parties, (iv) that the pleadings are frivolous/vexatious, and (v) the suppression of material facts. The defendants submitted that the suit is bad and liable, to be dismissed in limine. It is also submitted that this suit is an abuse of the process of Court. ( 22 ) THE defendants have also taken an objection that Mr. Pradip Agarwala and Mr. Purvez Billimoria, lacked authority to institute the plaint. The plaintiffs have not placed on record any resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company authorising Mr. Agarwala and Mr. Billimoria to institute the present suit. In the absence of any such expressed authority, presentation of the present plaint, on behalf of the plaintiff companies, is clearly by unauthorised persons and the plaint hasnot been signed and verified by the competent person as required by Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI read with Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules. It is submilted that the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It is submilted that the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. ( 23 ) IT is also mentioned in the written statements that the pleadings in the plaint are frivolous and or vexatious and as such are liable to be struck down. It is stated that Pepsi is guilty of making indiscriminate allegations against Coke without specifying, which, of the actions of the defendants constitutes tort. It is also mentioned in the written statements that the allegations of conspiracy are also entirely devoid of any particulars. ( 24 ) IT is also alleged that Pepsi is guilty of suppressio-veri and suggestio-faisi. It is: further alleged that the material facts have been deliberately suppressed from this Court. A number of instances have been enumerated to establish that Pepsi has not stated the facts correctly. It is alleged that Pepsi has suppressed the material facts and has based the plaint on incorrect facts. In the written statements it is also mentioned that one Mr. Gaurav Duggal was given a letter of release by Pepsi and it was only after this, he joined the employment of defendant No. 8. The plaintiffs have suppressed this material fact from this Court. Similarly, another example was also mentioned in which Mr. Johnny George joined the employment of defendant No. 8 in response to a public advertisement dated 18. 12. 1996. Similarly Mr. Jitendra Nayyar, whom the defendants are alleged to have induced into breaking his contract with Pepsi, also left the plaintiffs employment in December 1995 and joined Ranbaxy Laboratories, where he worked from January 1996 to December 1996. It was only after this, that he joined the employment of defendant No. 8 on 6. 1. 1997. Similarly Mr. Sailesh Joshi and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain joined defendant Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, only after completing their notice period term of their contract of employment. It is also mentioned in the written statements that the true inlent and purpose of this suit was to secure the enforcement of a term entered into by the plaintiffs with their employees,which is void and unenforceable. ( 25 ) IT is also incorporated in the written statements that the following are the undisputed or undisputable facts:- (A) that the salaries and perquisites offered by the defendant Nos. ( 25 ) IT is also incorporated in the written statements that the following are the undisputed or undisputable facts:- (A) that the salaries and perquisites offered by the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 a higher and better than those offered by any of the plaintiffs; (B) that the contracts of service entered into by the plaintiffs with their employees are terminable upon three months notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof; (C) that such of the employees who joined the services of any of the defendant Companies have been engaged at salaries comparable to or paid to other employees of those defendants; and (D) that the contracts entered into by the plaintiffs with their employees contain a clause by which the employee is restrained for a period of 12 months following his cessation of employment with Pepsi from taking up employment with any competing beverage company. ( 26 ) IT is also mentioned in the written statement that while denying the averments in the plaint, in case the defendants have at all enticed the employees of the plaintiffs by offering them better terms, salaries and perquisites, by doing so these defendants have not committed any actionable wrong, but have acted only in furtherance of their legitimate business interests. It is also mentioned in the written statements that to restrain the defendants from doing so would be to stifle free competition. Similarly,these defendants as employers were entitled to the most meritorious employees and the employees similarly cannot be legitimately denied the opportunity of bettering their prospects and service conditions. It is further mentioned that the plaintiffs have sought to do so contractually by introducing the above clause which is void and unenforceable as being in violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act. ( 27 ) THE defendants have mentioned in the written statements that the allegations contained in the plaint do not satisfy the requirement of any of the torts mentioned therein. The tort of conspiracy, as the plaint acknowledges, requires the use of unlawful means, but the allegations in the plaint do not set out any means used by the answering defendant or any of the defendants as are unlawful. It is stated that even where the means are unlawful, the tort is committed only, where the predominant purpose of the actions are designed to injure another. It is stated that even where the means are unlawful, the tort is committed only, where the predominant purpose of the actions are designed to injure another. No wrong is otherwise committed and no action will lie where the real purpose is to advance the business interests of the defendants, although a damage may ensue to the plaintiffs. ( 28 ) AS far as the tort of inducement of breach of contract is concerned, it is submitted that the tort is committed only where the alleged tortfeasor approaches the contractor, or where the contract is not terminable,or where the means are unlawful or where the predominant motive is to injure the other party to the contract. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the plaint, do not satisfy any of the requirements to justify the complaint that the answering defendant or any of the other defendants have committed the tort of inducement of breach of the contract. IN the written statements the defendants have denied that they have interfered with the contractual obligations of the employees of the plaintiffs. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that some of the reliefs prayed for, are by their very nature extremely wide and cannot and ought not to be granted. It is further submitted that the Courts would only grant reliefs as would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The effect of granting relief (c) would be to prevent the defendants 1 to 8 from employing or offering employment to any of the employees of the plaintiffs and would prevent the defendants from dealing with any person who had any personal relationship or association with the plaintiffs. ( 29 ) SIMILARLY if relief (d) is granted, it is submitted that it would result in introduction of a new clause in all existing contracts between the plaintiffs and their independent contractors, bottlers, consultants, distributors and/or other trade associates by which clause, they would be prohibited for all times and in all places from doing any business with the defendants or, any person similarly placed in the same trade or business. It is also incorporated that even though such contracts may be limited in time, relief in terms of prayer (d) will operate for all times to come and therefore, even after completion or determination of the contracts. It is also incorporated that even though such contracts may be limited in time, relief in terms of prayer (d) will operate for all times to come and therefore, even after completion or determination of the contracts. It is stated that for the same reason reliefs (e) and (f) are also extremely wide and ought not be granted. ( 30 ) REGARDING the main relief of prayers (a) and (b) the defendants have mentioned that the said reliefs are wholly uncalled for and this Court should not be required to pass a decree for declaration, declaring that the defendants have committed a tort of conspiracy or a tort of interference. It is submilted that the tort is actionable in claims for damages and injunctions. It is stated that the declaratory relief of the type prayed for in prayers (a) and (b) is unknown to law and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the present form. ( 31 ) IT is mentioned that competition is not only justified and permissible in any free market economy, but- is also in the interest of millions of consumers. It has been specifically denied that for the past six months or so the defendants have been resorting to business practices which are unethical, illegal, and constitute tortious interference in the business of the plaintiffs. It is also denied that the practices and actions referred to in the plaint constitute torlious interference in the business. It is also incorporated that the answering defendant or the other defendants are only interested in furthering their own business interests, which in the circumstances are wholly justified and proper. ( 32 ) IT is also mentioned in the written statements that the answering defendant and other defendant companies are furthering their business interests by employing only such number of people as they need and adopting such measures as are common to all business establishments. It is further mentioned that the defendants had no intention to damage the business interests of the plaintiffs. It is also incorporated that the plaintiffs are apprehensive of meeting stiff competition, and precisely for that reason the plaintiffs have filed the present suit, which is nothing but an attempt to stifle healthy competition. ( 33 ) THE plaintiffs cannot have any grievance because the defendant companies are entitled to further improve their own business interests. It is also incorporated that the plaintiffs are apprehensive of meeting stiff competition, and precisely for that reason the plaintiffs have filed the present suit, which is nothing but an attempt to stifle healthy competition. ( 33 ) THE plaintiffs cannot have any grievance because the defendant companies are entitled to further improve their own business interests. The plaintiff, (a leading rival as per its own admission in the market), cannot have a grievance, even if its market share falls or it is removed out of the competition altogether. It is also incorporated that defendants 1 to 7 have invested nearly Rs. 900 Crores till date, in furtherance of their business interests. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant companies have been accentuated by their interests of furthering their business and certainly not with the intent of causing or damaging the plaintiffs in any manner. ( 34 ) AS alleged, it is specifically denied that the answering defendant or its employees have entered into any conspiracy,in any manner. It is specifically denied that the answering defendant has been approaching the employees of the plaintiffs at all levels much less with inducement to terminate their existing contracts with Pepsi and to enter into employment contracts either with the answering defendant or any of the other defendant companies. It is also denied that the answering defendant on approach has successfully induced, some of the employees of the plaintiffs or their business associates so as to illegally terminate their existing contracts and enter into new employment contracts with the answering defendant. It is mentioned that defendants 1 to 8 employ over 2000 employees, of whom 1800 employees have been employed between August 1997 and April 1998. In the six months prior to the filing of the suit, the period during which the plaintiffs have alleged tortious wrongs committed by the defendants, a, mere handful of employees of lower to middle rank have been employed by the concerned defendants who were earlier employed by the plaintiffs. They were not key employees in any case. ( 35 ) IT is incorporated in the written statements that these employees have determined their contracts on their own volition prior to joining the defendant companies. It is also mentioned that Mr. They were not key employees in any case. ( 35 ) IT is incorporated in the written statements that these employees have determined their contracts on their own volition prior to joining the defendant companies. It is also mentioned that Mr. Gaurav Duggal and other employees have been employed only because of their skills, ability and capacity and not because they allegedly had any secret or confidential information relating to the plaintiffs. ( 36 ) IN the written statements the defendants craved leave of the Court to set out true factual sequence as the narration in the plaint is a gross distortion of facts and contentions of the plaintiffs and consequently the suit deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. ( 37 ) THE sequence given by the defendants is as under:- 1) The answering defendant submits that defendant No. l4, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Amitabh Bachan Corporation Ltd (ABCL) from June 1995 to September 30,1997, apparently decided to leave the employment of ABCL in April 1997 and this fact was widely reported in the media. In early August 1997, the answering defendant was approached by a former Chairman of the Hindustan Lever Limited who forwarded a copy of defendant No. 14 s resume along with a request that defendant No. l4 be considered for a job with the answering defendant. 2) Defendant No. l4 met with executives of the answering defendant in the first week of September 1997 and had further Interviews with senior executives of the answering defendant based outside India later that month. 3) On September 26,1997 the answering defendant intimated to defendant No. l4 made a formal offer to defendant No. l4 on October 6,1997. The answering defendant received defendant No. l4 s acceptance of the offer on 6th 0ctober,1997. 4) The answering defendant states it had never been informed by defendant No. l4 that he was in discussions with the plaintiffs. ( 38 ) IT is mentioned in the written statements that the members of Kanpur sales team of the plaintiffs had approached the defendants for improving their service conditions and furthering their future prospects. ( 39 ) THE defendants have denied that Mr. Bipaschit Bose was an employee of any of the defendant companies. It is mentioned that the plaintiffs are fully aware that Mr. ( 39 ) THE defendants have denied that Mr. Bipaschit Bose was an employee of any of the defendant companies. It is mentioned that the plaintiffs are fully aware that Mr. Bose is a professional consultant who runs a placement agency and as a part of his business introduces potential employers to potential employees. It is specifically denied that the defendants have induced Kanpur sales team or any other employee to leave Pepsi or that the answering defendant or other defendants had committed any tortious actions. ( 40 ) IT is also incorporated in the written statements that the sequence of events set out in the plaint is incorrect and an attempt has been made to mislead this Court. ( 41 ) IT is stated that Goa Bottling Company was an erstwhile bottler of Parle, who became a bottler of Coke in 1993, when Coke acquired various trade marks and they continued to be a bottler of Coke involved in preparing, packaging and distributing non-alcoholic beverages under the trade marks owned by Coke till 22. 11. 1997. ( 42 ) IN the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 8 it is incorporated that several applications were received which were scrutinised by the officials of Coke and it was decided to select only those who were found fit. It is also mentioned that the defendant companies were not aware of the existence of any restrictive clauses in the contracts of employment between these employees and Goa Bottling Company (for short "gbc") prohibiting the said employees from leaving the services of GBC. It is further mentioned that when the employees were asked as to when they could join, they said that they could do so immediately. As such, no fault could be found against the answering defendant. ( 43 ) IT is also mentioned that the averment in the plaint, that the entire sales team of GBC was employed by defendant No. 7 was incorrect. The strength of the sales team of the GBC was 100 and not 61 as mentioned in the. plaint. 26 out of 61 employees were independent route agents and not employees of GBC or any of their associates, and they were being remunerated as independent contractors on a commission basis. Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that they were employees of GBC. Accordingly, the question of issuing notices of termination by them could not arise. plaint. 26 out of 61 employees were independent route agents and not employees of GBC or any of their associates, and they were being remunerated as independent contractors on a commission basis. Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that they were employees of GBC. Accordingly, the question of issuing notices of termination by them could not arise. It is further mentioned that out of the remaining other alleged employees of GBC, six were trainees/temporary employees and as such were not required to give notices of termination. In any event, it is incorrect to stafe that the defendants or any of them had employed the entire sales team of GBC. ( 44 ) DEFENDANT No. 8 has also denied that GBC had made it clear to Coke that they did not intend to renew/continue their contract with Coke. Defendant No. 8 has also denied that Mr. Steve Heath, Mr. Michael Beale, Mr. Prakash Wakankar, Ms. Harsimran Singh and Ms. Anjali Mahajeli camped in Hotel Golden Tulip at Kanpur before the imminent termination of the franchise agreement of GBC with Coke. It is denied that the presence of these persons was premeditated or had the object of carrying out an alleged corporate raid. ( 45 ) IT is also denied that a high powered team was in Goa with the objective of inducing the employees to breach their employment contracts with GBC. It is also denied that Coke offered sales team inducement either in the form of higher remuneration or other benefits. It is also denied that there was any intention of causing loss, damage, injury and/or prejudice to GBC. ( 46 ) IN the written statements it is mentioned that Coke has aggressive advertising and marketing programmes around the world, including India, which includes sponsorship of local and national music events, as well as sports events. It is stated that Coke works with several music companies such as HMV, Sony Music, Music Channels, etc and they have entered into arrangements with them directly or with the help of event management agencies. It is also mentioned that Coke did not have any knowledge of any contract or arrangement between the plaintiffs and the Music Consultants, DNA Networks Pvt Ltd etc. It is specifically denied that in or around February 1998, the answering defendant or any of the defendants had approached the Music Consultant for a meeting. It is also mentioned that Coke did not have any knowledge of any contract or arrangement between the plaintiffs and the Music Consultants, DNA Networks Pvt Ltd etc. It is specifically denied that in or around February 1998, the answering defendant or any of the defendants had approached the Music Consultant for a meeting. It is denied that Coke had made an offer to the Music Consultant asking him to terminate his alleged exclusive contract with Pepsi and start working with Coke. ( 47 ) IT is denied by Coke that they induced Hotel Hyatt Regency to terminate its alleged contract with Pepsi either in violation of the terms thereof or at all. It is denied that Coke was aware that Hotel Hyall Regency had an exclusive arrangement for sponsoring of events with Pepsi. ( 48 ) IN the written statement defendant No. 8 has denied that it approached 21st Century Media or offered inducement to breach its contract with Pepsi. It also denied that it approached DNA Networks Pvt. Ltd. or offered inducement to breach its contracts with the Pepsi. It is further incorporated in the written statement that no inducement whatsoever has been offered to any of the employees by Coke or any other defendants, and the employees have voluntarily joined the defendant company at Kanpur, Goa and other places and are being given salaries in line with the existing remuneration package of the defendant companies. Nothing special is being offered to these employees, which is not offered to other employees in the same grade. It is also mentioned that there could be no question of Coke committing, a tort of procuring breach of contract in respect of contracts which are determinable at will. It is also mentioned that all recruitments have been made for promoting and developing its own business by the answering defendants as a part of their overall growth strategy. ( 49 ) IN the written statement the objection of territorial jurisdiction has also been taken by defendant No. 8. ( 50 ) SEPARATE replications have been filed to the written statements. In the replications, averments mentioned in the plaints have been reiterated. It is mentioned that the defendants have caused considerable damage to the plaintiffs business by hijacking their employees who have been trained by them and who have acquired confidential and exclusive business information during the course of their employment. In the replications, averments mentioned in the plaints have been reiterated. It is mentioned that the defendants have caused considerable damage to the plaintiffs business by hijacking their employees who have been trained by them and who have acquired confidential and exclusive business information during the course of their employment. It is also mentioned that the plaintiffs genuinely and bonafidely apprehend that the defendants are in the process of causing further damage to their business.