Delhi High Court
Autodesk, Inc. & Anr vs Mr.Rajiv P. Gandhi & Ors. on 13 March, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.366/2009
% Date of Decision: 13.03.2009
Autodesk, Inc. & Anr .... Plaintiffs
Through Ms.Aarshia Behl, Advocate.
Versus
Mr.Rajiv P. Gandhi & Ors. ....Defendants
Through Mr. Chander Shekhar Patney, 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.3332/2009
This is an application by plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 3
under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure to decree the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, the terms of the settlement are incorporated in the
application.
Under the settlement, the defendants No.1 and 3 have
undertaken to the plaintiffs that they will not use unlicensed software of
the plaintiffs and will not violate the copyright of the plaintiffs in their
software.
The defendants No.1 and 3 have also agreed to pay
Rs.17,25,000/- to plaintiffs toward full and final settlement which
include Rs.14,75,000/- towards purchase of the plaintiffs' software
mentioned in para 2(b) of the application and Rs.2,50,000/- towards
damages and legal expenses. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also
issued post dated cheques in the name of "Saikrishna & Associates -
Autodesk A/c." dated 10th March, 2009; 25th March, 2009 and 15th
April, 2009 for amounts of Rs. 5, 00, 000/-, Rs. 5, 25, 000/- and Rs. 4,
50, 000/- respectively. The damages and legal cost of Rs.2.50 lakh has
been paid by defendants No.1 and 3 to the plaintiffs in the name of
M/s. Saikrishna & Associates, attorneys of the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs have agreed to release the computers/central
processing units which were seized and sealed by the Local
Commissioner on account of the defendants having unlicensed/pirated
software of the plaintiffs on them.
The defendants No.1 and 3 have also agreed to give unannounced
audits of the plaintiff's software on the central processing
units/computers of the defendants for a period of 5 calendar years from
the date of settlement. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also contended
that the terms of settlement are fair and acceptable to them.
The application is signed by the constituted attorney of the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 and their respective
counsel. The application is also supported by the affidavits of Mr.Vishal
Ahuja, Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiffs Company, and by Shri
Rajiv Gandhi, Defendant No.1 and the Managing Director of Defendant
No.3 Company.
Considering the terms of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, there does not seem to be any impediment in allowing the
settlement and passing a decree in terms of the settlement arrived at
between the parties.
Consequently, the application is allowed.
CS(OS) NO.366/2009
Learned counsel for plaintiffs, on instructions, states that the
defendants No.2, 4 to 6 be deleted as party to the suit.
Consequently, the defendants No.2, 4 to 6 are deleted as parties
to the suit.
The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 3 have settled their
disputes in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the
terms of which are incorporated in the application being IA
No.3332/2009, which application has since been allowed.
Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in terms of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the terms of which are
incorporated in IA No.3332/2009. Decree sheet be drawn where IA
No.3332/2009 shall form part of the decree. Pending applications are
disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
IA No.3370/2009
This is an application by the plaintiffs for refund of Rs.50,000/-
deposited towards special cost pursuant to order dated 24th February,
2009. The parties have settled their disputes and in terms of the
settlement the suit has already been decreed. Consequently, plaintiffs
have become entitled for refund of Rs.50,000/- deposited on behalf of
plaintiffs by the counsel for the plaintiff, M/s.Saikrishna & Associates".
Consequently, the application is allowed. The amount of
Rs.50,000/- deposited as cost by letter dated 26th February, 2009 by
demand draft bearing No.017338 dated 26th February, 2009 for
Rs.50,000/- be refunded forthwith to the plaintiffs by issuing an
appropriate instrument in favour of "Saikrishna & Associates", attorney
of the plaintiffs.
The application is disposed of.
MARCH 13, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
"Dev"
