Delhi High Court
Microsoft Corporation & Ors. vs Mr. S.B. Mandava on 12 May, 2016
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.617/2007
% 12th May, 2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Adv.
versus
MR. S.B. MANDAVA ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Aashish Somari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
I.A. No.4736/2016 (Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC)
1. The sole defendant in the suit has been proceeded ex parte.
Plaintiffs have filed affidavit by way of evidence. At this stage plaintiffs have
filed this application for amendment of the plaint to bifurcate the pecuniary
jurisdiction for each of the plaintiffs. Since the defendant is ex parte and
amendments prayed for are only technical in nature, amendment application is
allowed. Amended plaint is taken on record.
I.A stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No.617/2007
2. This suit for permanent injunction, seeking restraint against the
infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiffs, is filed by a total of six
CS(OS) No.617/2007 Page 1 of 5
plaintiffs. Plaintiff nos.1 and 2 are one group which own the Microsoft
Windows and other softwares. Plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 are the second group and
which are the owners of the Autodesk softwares. Plaintiff no.5 is the third
group owning the Adobe series softwares, and plaintiff no.6 is the fourth group
which owns the Norton Antivirus software.
3. There is a sole defendant in the suit namely Mr. S.B. Mandava
trading as a sole proprietor of M/s S.M. Technologies. Defendant is said to be a
pirator who burns CDs illegally of the copyrights of the plaintiffs' softwares and
indulges in piracy, thus making huge illegal profits for himself and to the
detriment of the plaintiffs.
4. Defendant appeared in the suit through counsel on 2.11.2007
whereafter on account of non-filing of his written statement the right to file
written statement was closed by the Order dated 14.12.2007. By the same order
defendant was proceeded ex parte.
5. Plaintiffs have filed affidavit by way of evidence on their behalf of
Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar. Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar has proved due filing of
the suit in terms of the letters of authority and the powers of attorney exhibited
as Ex.P1 to P5. The suit originally was filed through Mr. Anand Banerjee and in
whose favour the necessary documents for instituting the suit, signing the plaint,
affidavit etc have been proved in terms of the documents exhibited as Ex.P7 to
P12.
CS(OS) No.617/2007 Page 2 of 5
6. PW-1 has deposed with respect to plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 being the
owners of Microsoft Windows softwares, Visual Studios software etc belonging
to plaintiff nos. 1 and 2. PW-1 has further deposed with respect to the
ownership of the Autodesk software programs of plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 being 3D
Studio Max and Combustion. PW-1 has further deposed with respect to the
ownership of different software programs of the plaintiff no.5 as Adobe
Photoshop, Adobe Pagemaker, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premier etc. PW-1 has
also deposed with respect to the ownership of Norton Antivirus software of
plaintiff no.6.
7. Witness PW-1 Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar has deposed with respect
to plaintiffs giving specific licenses to specific persons and without which
licenses no one can use the softwares of the plaintiffs.
8. The copyright registrations with respect to various software
programs of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 have been proved and exhibited as Ex.P13
to P20 and which are the copyright registrations certificates. Registration
certificates of AutoCAD and other softwares of the plaintiff no.4 have been
proved and exhibited as Ex.P21 to P22 and Ex.P24 to P25. The original
copyright registration certificates of plaintiff no.5 Adobe Acrobat have been
proved and exhibited as P26 to P32. Ownership of programs of plaintiff no.6 is
referred to in para 33 of the affidavit by way of evidence of PW-1.
CS(OS) No.617/2007 Page 3 of 5
9. The facts with respect to illegal piracy by the defendant of the
software programs of all the plaintiffs are deposed to by PW-1 in paras 36 to 38
of the affidavit by way of evidence. PW-1 also deposes of the defendant being a
habitual infringer and that an FIR has been registered against him which has
been proved and exhibited as Ex.P33.
10. PW-2 has also deposed with respect to how plaintiffs will suffer
losses. Plaintiffs have in this regard filed the affidavit by way of evidence of
one Chartered Accountant Mr. B.K. Anand, and who has deposed with respect
to the values of the softwares of different plaintiffs and consequent losses
suffered by the plaintiffs. In this affidavit by way of evidence cost of each
software program of the plaintiffs is given as also the value of the total loss
which is accordingly suffered by the plaintiffs on account of the revenues which
have been earned by the defendant. This affidavit by way of evidence shows
that potential loss to the plaintiffs would be of a very high amount running into
Rs.1,30,02,600/- and therefore, it is deposed that plaintiffs are justified in
claiming loss of profits of Rs.20 lacs as per the plaint.
11. In view of the above facts it is seen that plaintiffs have proved due
filing of the suit, ownership of the plaintiffs of different software programs,
infringement of the software programs of the plaintiffs by the defendant, and
losses caused to the plaintiffs, and therefore, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed
restraining the defendant from in any manner manufacturing and selling pirated
CS(OS) No.617/2007 Page 4 of 5
or unlicensed software programs made from the softwares which are owned by
the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are also awarded a money decree towards damages of
Rs.20 lacs against the defendant of Rs.5 lacs to plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, Rs.5 lacs
to plaintiff nos. 3 and 4, Rs.5 lacs to plaintiff no.5 and Rs.5 lacs to plaintiff
no.6. Plaintiffs will also be entitled to costs. Decree-sheet be prepared. Suit is
accordingly decreed and disposed of.
MAY 12, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
