LIST OF CASES John Richard Brady Vs. Chemical Process Equipment AIR 1987 Delhi 372Diljeet Titus Supporters Vs. Alfred A. Adebare 1968 3 AUER 732Market Survey Vs. Ministry of Social Security 1968 3 AUER 732 Remedies for cattle vs. Licensing Authority 2007(2)AWC 1093Escort Construction Vs. Action Construction1999 PTC 36 (Del)Michael Heath Vs. Subhash Chandra 1995 PTC 300Puneet Industrial Control Vs. Classic Electronic (1997) Supp Arb.LR 195 Del 9Burlington Home Vs. Rajneesh Chhibber 1995 PTC (15) 278Farm Equipment Vs. Greenfield, Madras High Court 2006 (32) PTC 343 (Mad)PepsiCo Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995). Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 (Ct. App. 2002).EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 299, 310 (SDNY 1999).Hubbord v Vosper[1972]2 QB84Seager vCopydex [1969]2 ALL ER 718Hariprasad VBenibai 1970JLJ091Faccnenda Chicken v Fowler [1986]1 ALL ER 617Gujrat BottlingCo ltd v Coca Cola L(1995) 5SCC 5Zee telefilmsLtd and films e shot and Anr V Sundial Communications Pvt Ltd and Ors 2003[5]BomCR404Proctor & Gamble Co. v Stoneham 747 NE2d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).Pepsi Foods Ltd. v Bharat Coca-cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd MANU/DE /0740/1999: 81(1999)DLT122INTRODUCTION: In the current scenario, in the era of globalization and technological boom where the economy is becoming highly technological and day by day more competitive, competent and experienced employees are inevitable. Considering the current market situation, employees are becoming less loyal to their company than in recent decades. Frequency of employees changing companies, sometimes leaving their jobs and working for competitors or themselves. In this climate of change, therefore, it has become... means of paper... a detriment to the employer, to which the employee had access during the course of the service. The Court referred to the Market Investigation vs. Ministry of Social Security and held that the four-fold control test, the ownership of two, the possibility of profit and the risk of loss determine whether the relationship was a service contract or a service contract. In the above ruling, an associate lawyer of a law firm walked away with the details of the list of clients and their addresses. In issuing an interim injunction, the court found that this was a case of breach of trust or confidence. The Court also held that a court must intervene to restrain a breach of trust regardless of any rights under the law. Such intention need not be express but implied as the breach of such trust is independent of any other rights set out above.