Autodesk, Inc & Another vs Mr.N.Mishra And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 460 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CS(OS) No.2586/2008

%                     Date of Decision: 09.02.2009

Autodesk, Inc & Another                               .... Plaintiffs
                    Through Mr.Nitin Sharma, Advocate

                                Versus

Mr.N.Mishra and others                              .... Defendants
                    Through Mr. Pradeep Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
                            for defendants No.1 and 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

IA No.1844/2009

This is an application by plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 3 to

decree the suit in terms of settlement arrived at between the plaintiffs

and defendants No.1 and 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on

instructions, also seeks to delete defendant No.2, who was an ex employ

of defendant No.3.

The terms of settlement arrived at between plaintiffs and

defendants No.1 and 3 are incorporated in the application. Under the

settlement, an amount of Rs.4.00 lakh was agreed to be paid through

demand drafts in the name of "Saikrishna & Associates" which the

learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 3 states has already been paid.

Learned counsel for plaintiffs also admitted that the amount of Rs.4.00

lakh has been paid to the plaintiffs through Saikrishna & Associates.

The defendants have agreed in terms of settlement not to commit

breach of settlement terms and they will not use unlicensed software of

plaintiff and will not indulge in any act which will amount to

infringement of plaintiffs' copyright in its computer programme. It is

stated by the parties that at the time of signing the application for

settlement, no software use was found at any computer systems of

defendants which were not licensed or which were not legal. The

application is signed by the authorized representative of plaintiffs and

by defendants No.1 and 3 and their respective counsel. The

application is also supported by the affidavits of Mr.Vishal Ahuja,

constituted attorney of plaintiff, and Mr.S.N. Mishra, defendant No.1,

and the President & Chief Executive Officer of defendant No.3.

At the request of counsel for the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 is

deleted from the array of parties.

Considering the terms of settlement, there does not seem to be

any impediment in allowing with settlement between the parties.

Consequently, the application is allowed.

CS(OS) No.2586/2008

Defendant No.2 is deleted as a party to the suit.

The other parties have settled their disputes in terms of

settlement incorporated in IA No.1844/2009 which has been allowed.

Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of settlement

arrived at between the parties in IA No.1844/2009. Decree sheet be

drawn where IA No.1844/2009 shall form part of the decree. All the

pending application are also disposed of. Parties are left to bear their

own costs.

The next date, i.e., May 12, 2009, is cancelled in the facts and

circumstances.

February 09, 2009                                 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'