Bombay HC Denies UBS Access to Ex-Employers’ Cloud Accounts in IP Suit, Cites Lack of Evidence
Mumbai, 11th April 2026: The Bombay High Court has rejected an interim application filed by UBS Business Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., which sought intrusive access to the cloud accounts of a former employee’s previous employers in an ongoing intellectual property dispute.
Presided over by Justice Gauri Godse, the Court refused to grant the global financial entity access to three third-party cloud accounts, ruling that UBS failed to establish any substantive “nexus” between its proprietary information and the disputed accounts.
The legal battle stems from a 2022 Commercial IP Rights Suit filed by UBS against its former employee, Nisheet Singh, alleging copyright infringement of its software systems, “OneHRIS” and “MyShop”. Previously, the Court had appointed a neutral technical expert, FTI Consulting, alongside a Court Receiver, to securely delete UBS’s confidential information from eighteen devices belonging to Singh.
While that secure deletion was successfully completed, UBS filed a subsequent application seeking to compel Singh’s ex-employers—including Intellibonds Limited—to grant access to three additional cloud accounts. UBS expressed concerns that its confidential information might have been stored there.
Dismissing this request, Justice Godse delivered a firm observation against invasive third-party discovery without adequate proof.
“In the absence of any nexus of plaintiff’s confidential data with the cloud accounts or in the absence of any apprehension expressed that the confidential data of the plaintiff is likely to have been stored on the third party’s cloud accounts, I do not see any reason to issue any directions to the third parties who are the ex-employers of the defendant,” the Court stated in its March 30 order.
Representing the defendant, counsel Ashutosh Srivastava argued that the plaintiff’s application was an unsubstantiated and intrusive demand against Singh’s digital privacy. He highlighted that FTI Consulting had already completed the “irreversible and secure deletion” of data from the primary devices, making the pursuit of unrelated third-party accounts legally meritless.
The Court agreed that a lack of concrete evidence or reasonable apprehension effectively shielded the defendant and his former employers from speculative demands. However, maintaining a balanced approach toward the ongoing litigation, the Court did not let the defendant off the hook entirely.
Taking note of an anomaly pointed out by the plaintiff, Justice Godse observed that Singh’s LinkedIn profile listed him as the owner of Respondent No. 2, an entity named Legal and Compliance and Whistle Blower Protection Private Limited (Start Up). Consequently, the Court found it “not believable” that the defendant would lack access to that specific entity’s accounts.
To ensure complete transparency, the Court has instructed Singh to file an Affidavit of Disclosure specifically regarding the cloud accounts maintained on behalf of this startup by April 9, 2026.
Legal experts note that the ruling underscores the judiciary’s insistence on concrete evidence before granting intrusive directions against third parties. It serves as a vital precedent in an era of increasing digital surveillance, sending a clear message that litigation cannot be used as a tool for digital harassment or speculative information grabs.
During the proceedings, UBS was represented by counsel Mr. Malcom Siganporia, along with Mr. Homruz Mehta and Mr. Virgil Braganza, instructed by JSA.
The matter has been scheduled for its next hearing on April 21, 2026.
