Delhi High Court - Orders
Adobe Incorporated & Ors vs Yy And Ors on 21 April, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 103/2026
ADOBE INCORPORATED & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Shruti Baid, Ms. Aarshia Behl,
Mr. Suryansh Gupta, Ms. Aashi
Sharma, Mr. Bhavya Manda, Ms.
Yashi Singh and Ms. Ashwarya
Bansal, Advocates
versus
YY AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Diya Kapur Senior Advocate
with Mr. Chaitanya D Mehta, Ms.
Manjira Dasgupta, Mr. Bhargav
Ravindran Thali, Mr. Mayank
Khaitan, Mr. Raghav Kumar and Mr.
Naibedya Dash, Advocates for R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 21.04.2026 CM APPL. 26025/2026 (for directions)
1. This is an application filed by the respondent no. 5 seeking following reliefs: -
"a. Direct the de-sealing/release of Respondent No 5's systems, i.e., desktops and laptops seized and sealed by the local commissioners in pursuance of the Order dated 13.04.2026 in favour of Respondent No. 5 so as to permit Respondent No. 5 to use the same for its business operations and/or issue appropriate directions in respect of Order dated 13.04.2026 with such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 21:37:29 appropriate by this Hon'ble Court;
b. Pass any further Order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to do complete justice in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Ms. Diya Kapur, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, draws our attention to the averments made in the application, more specifically paragraph '30' onwards, which we reproduce as under: -
"30. It is submitted that the continued seizure/sealing of the systems is significantly hampering and prejudicing the bona fide business operations of Respondent No. 5 and causing significant business losses to Respondent No. 5 with each passing day. As already stated above, the 15 Respondent No. 5 operates on tight work schedules, and is regularly required to turnaround its deliverables on very short notice. Because of the sealing of systems, Respondent No.5 is already suffering on account of delay in production and backlog of future works.
31. In this context, a bare perusal of the Plaint will show (i) that undisputedly, Respondent No. 5 has bona fide obtained at least 190 licenses from the Appellants and is a licensed user of the Appellants' software to this extent; and (ii) that the entire cause of action for the underlying Suit is premised on mere apprehensions of alleged infringement by Respondent No. 5.
32. Furthermore, the Impugned Order expressly records that no prima facie case was made out by the Appellants for grant of injunction. Pertinently, the Order dated 13.04.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court also does not grant any injunction in favor of the Appellants/ against Respondent No. 5; nor does it purport to hold that the Appellants have satisfied the trinity test for grant of any injunction against Respondent No. 5. This Hon'ble Court revived the Appellants' Application under Order XXXIV Rule (1) and (2) and listed the same for consideration before the Ld. District Court.
33. As such, in these circumstances, coupled with the fact that FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 21:37:29 the commissions have already inspected and inventoried the systems of the Respondent No 5, the purpose of the Order dated 13.04.2026. i.e., to preserve evidence of alleged infringement (if any), stands satisfied.
34. In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct release of Respondent No. 5's systems to it for use in its business operations and/or modify the directions contained in 16 paragraph 16 (V) and (XI) of the Order dated 13.04.2026 in terms of the same.
35. At this juncture, it is also submitted that this Hon'ble Court, on multiple occasions, have permitted release of systems alleged to be containing infringing material back to the defendant upon undertaking of the defendant to not delete/tamper with such systems; or has been pleased to alternatively direct creating of mirror hard disks to preserve the evidence which may form subject matter of the trial in the underlying suit. It is most humbly submitted should this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the de-sealing of Respondent No. 5 systems in a similar manner, which will not only aid the interests of justice but also serves to balance the rights and remedies of all parties concerned.
36. It is submitted that continuation of the directions contained in the Order dated 13.04.2026 against Respondent No. 5 will cause grave prejudice to Respondent No. 5. Pertinently, the systems sealed during the execution of the commission contain confidential/proprietary data and information of Respondent No.5's clients and the continued sealing of the same exposes Respondent No.5 to potential claims/delay/breaches. However, should the present application be allowed, no harm will be caused to the Appellants.
37. The instant Application is being filed bona fide and may be allowed in the interests of justice."
[Emphasis supplied]
3. She has also placed reliance on an order passed by one of us, (Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J) in CS(COMM) 1175/2025 on 04.11.2025 FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 21:37:29 wherein, in an identical factual situation, while appointing a Local Commissioner for execution of the commission, the Court, in paragraph 39(iii), directed as under: -
"iii. The evidence of any of the Plaintiffs' programs, which may be available on the Defendants' system, shall be copied on a hard drive and the computers shall be released back to the Defendants, provided they give an undertaking to pay the license fee to the Plaintiffs as may be determined by this Court, upon entering appearance in the matter. The Local Commissioner shall get the said undertaking executed by the Defendants."
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the same order be passed in the present application.
5. Ms. Shruti Baid, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/non- applicants submits that, in-principle, she has no objection on an order being passed for release of the computers to the respondent/applicant on the undertaking of the respondent, however, she contends that, instead of merely accepting an undertaking from the respondents/applicants, the release ought to be additionally made subject to deposit of a certain amount so as to safeguard the rights of the appellants for recovery of license fee due for the unauthorized use of the software programs.
6. We are of the view that the appropriate shall be in the fact situation the application be disposed of by directing that the computers, which have been seized and sealed by the Local Commissioner(s) while executing the commission in terms of the order dated 13.04.2026, as it is alleged the programs of the appellants are being run/used, the hard drives be copied on a hard disk, to create mirror copies, and the computers be released back to the respondents, provided the respondents give an undertaking to pay the license FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 21:37:29 fee to the appellants as may be determined by the Trial Court in the suit proceedings. The reference to computers in this order includes desktops and laptops.
7. The said undertaking shall be filed by the applicant/respondents during the course of the day. The undertaking will be signed by a duly authorized representative. A copy thereto be given to the counsel for the appellants as well.
8. The undertaking shall be strictly in terms of our above order.
9. Upon such an undertaking being filed, the Local Commissioner(s) who were appointed by us on 13.04.2026 shall visit the defendant's premises for creating mirror hard disks of the respondent's computers on which the appellant's programs were found running, and thereafter release the computers back to the respondents/applicants. The hard disks shall be retained by the respective Local Commissioners and deposited with the Trial Court along with their report after duly inventorying the same.
10. The learned Local Commissioner shall be paid an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- each as fees to be borne by the respondents herein. All attendant costs of lodging, boarding and travelling will be borne by the respondents.
It is made clear that the payment of fees to the Local Commissioner shall be subject to the final determination of the suit. The Commission shall be executed by tomorrow i.e., 22.04.2026. The appellants shall also be represented by its representative and also the counsel at the site.
11. We have been informed that there are 100 machines at one site and 300 machines at the other site, and copying of the hard drives would require assistance of technical experts. We clarify that the Commissioners shall be at liberty to take the services of experts for copying the hard drive of the FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 21:37:29 computers on which infringing software programs were found.
It is made clear that the technical experts to be engaged for copying the programs on the hard drive, for the assistance of the Local Commissioners, shall be engaged by the respondents/applicants and the charges of the expert shall be paid by the respondents.
The appellants herein shall also be at liberty to separately engage an expert for supervision of the exercise needed to be undertaken in terms of this order and the cost of such an expert shall be borne by the appellants. The expert engaged by the appellants will also work under the instructions of the Local Commissioners.
12. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties on the merits of the dispute pertaining to infringement are left open to be agitated in the suit before the Trial Court.
13. The Commissioner shall file the additional report after undertaking the commission in terms of this order within one [1] week thereafter.
14. The application stands disposed of.
15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 21, 2026/rhc FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 21:37:29