MRS. LATHIKA PAI v. M/S MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

#1. M/S MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MS. IRINA GHOSE, REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 807, NEW DELHI HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001. REGISTERED COMPANY ACT. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25869 WP No. 20253 of 2025 HC-KAR

#2. PUNEET CHANDOK, WORKING AT 807, NEW DELHI HOUSE BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 EMAIL ID - pchandok@microsoft.com

#3. ARUN KARI KAKATKAR WORKING AT 807, NEW DELHI HOUSE BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 EMAIL ID - arunakakatkar@microsoft.com

#4. VIKRAM TIWARI, WORKING AT 807, NEW DELHI HOUSE BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 EMAIL ID - vikramtiwari@microsoft.com

#5. ALICIA JEAN CULLEN, WORKING AT ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052-7329, EMAIL ID - aliciacullen@microsoft.com

#6. V. PAIGE PRATTER, WORKING AT ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052-7329, EMAIL ID - paige.pratter@microsoft.com - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25869 WP No. 20253 of 2025 HC-KAR

#7. MICROSOFT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, MR. BRAD SMITH, REGISTERED ADDRESS AT ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052-7329, REGISTERED COMPANY ACT. (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH3) IN O.S. 3982/2025 ONLY INSOFAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONER HEREIN / PLAINTIFF ANNEX-A THEREIN TO NOT PUBLISH THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN / 1ST DEFENDANT THEREIN AND TO NOT PUBLISH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS ON I.A NO. 1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25869 WP No. 20253 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the concerned Court in O.S.No.3982/2025.

#2. Heard Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. I.S. Devaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. Mohammed Shameer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

#3. The bone of contention is the order. The order reads as follows: "Sri.MS, advocate files vakalath for caveator. The learned senior counsel for plaintiff argued to consider IA No.1. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for defendant No.1 submitted an opportunity provided to file detailed objection to IA No.1. In the meantime the senior counsel filing of for plaintiff submitted that until objections the defendant No.1 may be directed to preserve all the documents referred to into para No.4 of this application. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25869 WP No. 20253 of 2025 HC-KAR The learned counsel for defendant No.1 filed memo of undertaking that what ever the documents and records listed in IA No.1 as on today i.e., 09.06.2025 will be preserved till the next date of hearing. Subject to plaintiff not to publish it is undertaking or any order of this Court. For having heard the learned senior counsels for plaintiff and defendants. I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA No.1 is kept open until filing of detailed objection to IA no.1 by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is hereby directed to preserve all the documetns are records as listed in para No.4 of the application (what ever the documents and records listed in IA No.1 as on today i.e., 09.06.2025). It is made clear that plaintiff shall not publish the undertaken given by the defendant No.1 nor publish the order of this Court until furhter order on IA No.1. For objection to IA No.1 and issue suit summons to defendant Nos.2 to 4 through RPAD and defendant Nos.5 to 7 through Air Mail, R/by 07.07.2025."

#4. The order is indicative of the fact on a perusal at its first blush that the order of the Court also should not be published, as is passed on I.A.No.1. A further reading would indicate or it is needless to observe that the order of the Court should not be published by the petitioner as the petitioner had undertaken not to publish the undertaking given by defendant No.1 pursuant to which the aforesaid order is passed while undertaking given by defendant No.1 cannot be published, as that was a part of undertaking. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25869 WP No. 20253 of 2025 HC-KAR

#5. The respectful learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the respondent - defendant No.1 had filed a memo before the concerned Court undertaking that they will preserve all the correspondences which concern the issue and that undertaking should not be published by the petitioner.

#6. The Court goes on to record that the plaintiff shall not publish the undertaking given by defendant No.1 nor publish the order of the Court until further orders. The words "nor publish the order of the Court" cannot be read in isolation, it has to be read concerning the plaintiff. The publication of the order shall not be made by the plaintiff, is what the order would mean, as it cannot mean that the order cannot be published.

#7. The said clarification would suffice for the present is what the learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties would submit. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25869 WP No. 20253 of 2025 HC-KAR

#8. In that light, the undertaking of non-publication is only relatable to the petitioner and not to the order passed by the Court.

#9. The concerned Court is at liberty to regulate its procedure further. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101