Autodesk, Inc. & Ors. vs Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 886 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                              Date of Reserve: January 22, 2009
                                                  Date of Order: March 18, 2009


+ IA Nos. 14454 & 14455 of 2007 in CS(OS) 2375/2007

%                                                                          18.03.2009


       Autodesk, Inc & ors.                                          ...Plaintiffs
       Through: Mr. Ankush Mahajan

       Versus

       Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors.                                    ...Defendants
       Through: Mr. Mohd. Tariq Mustafa, Advocate


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?



       ORDER

IA Nos. 14454/2007 & 14455/2007

1. The above two applications have been made on behalf of

applicants/defendants No. 2 and 3 under Section 151 CPC wherein it is

stated that the Local Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction in

executing the commission and instead of handing back the computers,

CPUs and other material on superdari to applicant in terms of order of

the court, the Local Commissioner has locked 18 out of a total of 19

computers in a separate room, thus paralyzing the business of the

CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 1 Of 4 defendants and bringing it to a complete standstill. A prayer is made

for allowing the defendants to use the computers, CPUs etc.

2. This Court had appointed the Local Commissioner under Order 26

Rule 9 CPC on 4th December 2007 in following terms:

"The Local Commissioners shall also make an inventory of the unauthorized/ pirated software of the plaintiffs being used by the defendants. The Local Commissioners shall take into custody the Central Processing Units, compact/ floppy disks containing the unauthorized /pirated versions of the plaintiffs software inter alia including Windows XP, Microsoft Office, AutoCAD, AutoCAD Inventor, Autodesk 3DS Max, Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Autodesk, Revit, Map Info, Unigraphics (now known as NX), Solid Edge & Pro Engineer & their various versions which would be identified by the technical experts/ representatives of the plaintiffs to accompany the Local Commissioner. On taking custody of the same and making an inventory of the software, the Local Commissioners shall release the same on superdari to the defendants.

In case of computers being protected by password, the defendants to disclose the password to enable the Local Commissioner and representatives of the plaintiffs to access the computers.

3. The report of the Local Commissioner shows that the Local

Commissioner had put the business machines i.e. computers, CPUs etc

CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 2 Of 4 in a room and sealed the same and thereafter told the

defendants/applicants to keep the seal intact. He did not release these

articles on superdari to the defendants. It is apparent that the Local

Commissioner exceeded commission given to him. The Local

Commissioner was not supposed to lock the goods i.e. computers,

CPUs etc and seal the same in a room, as has been done in this case.

The Local Commissioner was only to prepare the inventory and give

the goods back to the defendant on Superdari.

4. Counsel for the plaintiffs opposes the application of the

defendants of allowing the defendants to use its computers etc. on the

ground that the Local Commissioner has found that the defendant was

using pirated software of the plaintiff and in case the defendants are

allowed to use the machines having pirated software version, the

defendants would be perpetuating the illegality. In my view, this

proposition of the plaintiff is unfounded. This Court has already issued

an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the

unauthorized and pirated software titles of the plaintiff company

including Windows XP, Microsoft Office, AutoCAD, AutoCAD Inventor,

Autodesk 3DS Max, Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Autodesk, Revit,

Map Info, Unigraphics (now known as NX), Solid Edge & Pro Engineer &

their various versions. In case defendants violate the injunction, the

plaintiff will have remedy available to it under law. This Court cannot

allow the Local Commissioner to seal or take away the properties of the

defendants while protecting the rights of the plaintiffs.

CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 3 Of 4

5. In the result, both the above applications are allowed. The

defendants are at liberty to open the seal of the room in which the

computers etc. are kept. However, the defendants shall be bound by

the injunction granted by this Court and shall allow inspection of their

rooms/premises from time to time by the plaintiffs or their

representatives, in order to see if the pirated software were still being

used or not by the defendants.

6. With above order, both the applications stand disposed of.

CS(OS) 2375/2007

List on 30th March 2009.

March 18, 2009                                      SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd

CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 4 Of 4