Karnataka High Court
M/S Sportingmindz Technology Private ... vs Mr Prasanna Agoram Alias Prasanna Raman on 18 November, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.No.50597/2014 (IPR)
BETWEEN:
M/s.Sportingmindz Technology Private Limited,
A company registered under
The provisions of the Companies Act 1956
Having its registered office at
No.54, 4th Floor, "Nama Aurore",
South End Road, Basavanagudi.
Rep. by its Director
And Authorised Signatory
Mr.Sanjay Raghavendra Rao. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.S.Guru Prasanna, Adv.,)
AND:
1. Mr.Prasanna Agoram alias
Prasanna Raman,
Major,
Son of Mr.Sethuraman Agoram,
No.404, Prakasha Pride,
Near Shivarj Motors,
Opp. Prestige Tech Park,
Kadabisanahalli, Marathahalli,
Bangalore - 87.
2. M/s.Primal Patterns Sport Studio Private Ltd.,
A company registered under the
Provisions of the Companies Act 1956
-2-
Having its registered office at
No.3, Ground Floor,
Arunachalam Road, Kotturpuram,
Chennai- 600085.
Rep. by its managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.Chetana,Adv., for Smt.N.Smitha, Adv., for R1)
******
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct setting aside the impugned
order dated 30.10.2014 passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No.8079/2014
on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH 10) (at Ann-A)
filed by the petitioner.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has assailed order dated 30/10/2014 passed in O.S.No.8079/2014 by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH 10) (Annexure-A). The impugned order reads as under:
"Perused I.A. I & II, affidavit and the
documents. Issue suit summons and
emergent notice on I.A. I & II to the
defendants 1 and 2 by 27-11-2014"
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 Smt.Chetana states that she would -3- file vakalatnamma for both respondent Nos.1 and 2. She is permitted to do so within a period of two weeks.
3. The matter was listed yesterday and was adjourned to today so as to enable respondents' counsel to get instructions in the matter.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed along with the pliant in the suit have not yet been taken up for consideration, pursuant to appearance of the defendants in the suit, inasmuch as the trial court has ordered, 27/11/2014 as the date for their appearance before the trial court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, in the interregnum, respondents are violating the copyright of the petitioner in the computer software programme '22 yardz' through 'Mr.Cricket', which is a software programme developed by them utilizing the code of '22 yardz' and thereby illegally profiting by the sale and marketing of that software. -4-
5. In response to this submission, learned counsel for respondents stated that the suit itself is not maintainable as the cause of action arises on an alleged violation of the terms of contract between respondent No.1 and petitioner, wherein there is an arbitration clause and therefore, the petitioner ought to have resorted to arbitration rather than filing a suit before the trial court. She therefore, opposes grant of any injunction at this stage.
6. Having heard learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the date of hearing fixed by the trial court for appearance of the defendants is 27/11/2014, which is not too far of. Learned counsel for respondents states that defendants would appear before the trial court on that day and file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by contending that the suit is not maintainable, in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement between respondent No.1 and petitioner herein.
7. Submission is placed on record.
-5-
8. However, petitioner's counsel states that till the application under Section 8 of the Act is disposed and thereafter I.As. 1 and 2 filed in the suit are considered (in case the application is dismissed) some protective orders may be passed in favour of the petitioner having regard to the nature of the intellectual property and the kind of violation that is alleged as against the respondent. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:
Respondents to appear before the trial court on 27/11/2014. They are at liberty to file an application under Section 8 of the Act on that date. If such an application is filed, then the trial court to consider that application in accordance with law and dispose it on or before 10/12/2014. In case the aforesaid application is rejected and the suit survives, the trial court to dispose of I.A. 2 in accordance with law on or before 20/12/2014. Till the disposal of the application filed under Section 8 of the Act by 10/12/2014 or 20/12/2014 as the case may be, the respondents herein, their agents, representatives and others claiming to act against them are restrained from -6- directly or indirectly or in any manner sharing, copying, reproducing, reverse engineering, adapting, using, altering, tampering with or hacking into the original source code in part or full of the Plaintiff's Copyrights, in the computer software programme "22yardz - Cricket Match Analysis" in any manner whatsoever.
The aforesaid order shall not influence the trial court from considering I.A. 1 in accordance with law.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*