Delhi High Court Restrains Forensic Investigator From Circulating Confidential Report Part Of Kochhar And Co Suit

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained a forensic investigator from disclosing or circulating a report forming part of a privileged investigation in a commercial suit filed by Kochhar & Co. alleging breach of legal privilege and confidentiality.

Justice Mini Pushkarna restrained the person from disclosing or circulating the report or any confidential material related to the assignment till the next date of hearing in August. 

“Accordingly, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, the defendant no. 1, including his agents, servants, assigns and all other persons acting on his behalf, are restrained from disclosing, publishing or circulating the purported Report dated 01st April, 2026 to any third-party. The defendant no. 1 is further restrained from disclosing, publishing or circulating any confidential or privileged information, documents or reports relating to the plaintiff's assignment, which are in his possession.”

The dispute arose from an investigation into a fire incident that occurred on February 14, 2026 at a Nashik plant of Mylan Laboratories Ltd. Kochhar & Co. had engaged one of the defendants, a forensic consultant entity, under an engagement letter dated February 22, 2026, who in turn engaged Nilesh Ukunde (def. 1) as a forensic investigator. The engagement imposed strict obligations of confidentiality and legal privilege.

It was alleged that Ukunde breached these obligations by sharing findings with employees and third parties and was consequently directed to cease work on March 10, 2026. Despite this, he allegedly prepared an unauthorised report on April 1, 2026 and circulated it to police authorities and others, while also contacting witnesses and interfering with the investigation.

The court held that Kochhar & Co. had made out a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in its favour and risk of irreparable harm if relief were denied.

The court observed:

“Considering the submissions made before this Court, as noted hereinabove, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour. Further, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1, and irreparable harm shall be caused to the plaintiff, if interim orders are not passed in favour of the plaintiff.”

The court issued notice to the defendants, directed the plaintiff to serve copies of the injunction application and supporting documents within one week, and posted the matter for further hearing on August 27.