LIST OF CASESJohn Richard Brady Vs. AIR Chemical Process Equipment 1987 Delhi 372Diljeet Titus Advocates Vs. Alfred A. Adebare 1968 3 AUER 732Market Inquiry Vs. Ministry of Social Security1968 3 AUER 732Recourse to livestock against. Licensing Authority 2007(2)AWC 1093Escorts Construction Vs. Action Construction1999 PTC 36 (Del)Michael Heath Vs. Subhash Chandra 1995 PTC 300Puneet Industrial Control Vs. Electronic Classic (1997) Supp Arb.LR 195 Del 9Burlington Home Vs. Rajneesh Chhibber 1995 PTC (15) 278Agricultural 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) 545Zee telefilmsLtd and films and 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. c. 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 more and more technological and day by day more competitive, competent and knowledgeable employees are inevitable. In the current market situation, employees are less and less loyal to their company compared to recent decades. The frequency of employees changing companies is high, sometimes they leave their jobs and work for competitors or for themselves. So, in this changing climate, it became......a matter of paper......a detriment to the employer, which the employee had access to during his service. The court referred to the judgment of Market Investigation Vs. Ministry of Social Security and held that four criteria of control, two ownership, chance of profit and risk of loss determine whether the relationship was a contract for services or a service contract. In the said judgment, an associate lawyer of a law firm walked away with data relating to the list of clients and their contact details. While issuing an interlocutory injunction, the court held that a case of breach of trust had been established. The court further held that a court must intervene to prevent a breach of trust, regardless of any statutory rights. Such an intention need not be expressed but implied because the violation of this trust is independent of any other rights as stated above..