Terix Computer Service India Pvt Ltd runs an IT maintenance business across the world using its own special software and tools that it developed since 2002. In 2021 it noticed many clients suddenly stopping renewals and discovered that two of its own directors had secretly started a new company called TPM Guru Pvt Ltd, diverted over 115 client contracts worth more than ₹3.70 crore, used Terix staff and parts to serve those clients, copied Terix software, and even froze Terix bank accounts to force an “exit” deal. Terix filed a civil suit in Delhi High Court asking for an order to stop the copying and for damages. The new company and the directors filed an application saying two earlier written agreements (one from 2020 called Collaboration Agreement and one from 2021 called Exit Agreement) contained clear arbitration clauses that required all disputes to be decided by a private arbitrator in Noida instead of court. Terix objected, arguing the case was about copyright theft (which courts alone should decide), the agreements were invalid or already finished, and not every defendant had signed them. The judge carefully read the agreements, the plaint, and Supreme Court rulings like Vidya Drolia and Cox & Kings. He found that the heart of the fight arose directly from the business relationship created by those agreements, the copyright claims were tied to what happened under the contract and not purely a public right, and even non-signatories could be included because the whole matter formed one connected transaction. On 28 February 2026 the court allowed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referred the entire dispute to arbitration, and the civil suit was sent to the arbitrator for final decision.
Title: Terix Computer Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs TPM Guru Pvt. Ltd. , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 783/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.
Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
