Delhi District Court
M/S Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd vs Anand Kumar Prajapati on 20 February, 2026
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS NEELAM SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-05, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 174/2020
In the matter of:
Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd.
(through its director)
Principal Place of working at :-
Regus Office Center Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Level 15, Eros Corporate Towers,
Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Anand Kumar Prajapati
S/o Subhash Chauhan,
Chaura Sadatpur
Opposite D-23,
Sector 22, Noida
Uttar Pradesh - 201301
Also at:
Chanmari,
Behind Fatima Hospital,
Mau Nath Bhanjan, Mau,
Uttar Pradesh - 275101
Email: [email protected]
[email protected] .....Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 02.07.2020
Judgment reserved on : 04.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.02.2026
Final Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, M/s Webkul Software Private Limited, seeking recovery of damages, mandatory and permanent injunction and rendition of accounts CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 1 of 35 :2: against the defendant, Anand Kumar Prajapati.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of development of web and mobile product based software and allied products. The Plaintiff was originally having its registered office in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Noida. Subsequently, pursuant to a special resolution and necessary statutory approvals, the Plaintiff shifted its registered office from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, which was duly recorded by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Thereafter, from time to time, the plaintiff changed its registered office to Regus Office Center Services Pvt. Ltd., Level 15, Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 and again to Office No. 112, Laxmi Chamber D. 223, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has its corporate office at A-67, Sector 63, NOIDA 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. It is further submitted that the plaintiff still has its principal place of working at Regus Office Center Services Pvt. Ltd., Level 15, Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 2 of 35 :3:3. The present suit has been instituted through Mr. Vipin Kumar Sahu, one of the Directors of the Plaintiff Company, who has been duly authorized by a Board Resolution dated 21.01.2019 to sign, verify and institute the present suit and other legal proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff.
4. It is submitted that Plaintiff Company is engaged in providing web and mobile product based softwares for enterprise-level e-commerce businesses. The Plaintiff company was established in August 2010 with the objective of bridging gaps between business and various open-source platforms by developing plug-ins. The Plaintiff expanded rapidly due to its innovations & efforts and conducts business globally through its website www.webkul.com.
5. It is submitted that most of the web pages are developed/built using open-source platforms such as Magento, Prestashop, Shopify and WordPress, which often lack several user-required features. The Plaintiff company was built with the aim of bridging these gaps as per the requirement of the respective e-commerce businesses, by providing necessary extensions and modules. The Plaintiff has developed more than 1,000 web extensions and mobile applications for various open- source platforms. These products are sold through the Plaintiff's website http://store.webkul.com and are categorized as e-
commerce products, CMS products, ODOO ERP & CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 3 of 35 :4: SALESFORCE CRM products and web applications.
6. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is the owner of copyright in the software products/modules/extensions/add-ons developed by it. These software products are "computer programmes" and "literary works" within the meaning of Section 2(ffc) and Section 2(o) the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff contends that these works were created by its employees in the course of their employment and, therefore, under Section 17 of the Copyright Act and the doctrine of "works made for hire", the copyright in such works vests exclusively with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims to be the sole owner of all rights enumerated under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, including the rights to reproduce, adapt, distribute and commercially exploit the said works. The Plaintiff's computer programs were first published in India and were created by its employees during the course of employment. By virtue of the "works made for hire" doctrine and Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the copyright in the said works vests with the Plaintiff. Under Section 51 (a) (i) and 51
(a) (b) of the Copyright Act, copyright is deemed to be infringed when any person, without license, exercises rights exclusively vested in the copyright owner or sells infringing copies of the work. Under the Copyright Act, computer programs are treated as a special class of work, and even unauthorized use of pirated software amounts to infringement, as use necessarily involves reproduction at the time of installation or execution. The Plaintiff licenses its software products to customers under a CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 4 of 35 :5: standard End-User License Agreement/Software License Agreement displayed on its website. As per the Plaintiff, the license granted is domain-specific and limited in nature, permitting use of the software only on a single domain for the licensee's own business or personal use. The license expressly prohibits copying, modification, resale, sublicensing, distribution, publication of source code, creation of derivative works, or making the software available on public platforms, including code repositories, without the Plaintiff's written consent. As per the License Agreement, the software can be used only on one specific domain, cannot be placed on public servers, and backup copies cannot be shared or made accessible to any unauthorized person.
7. It is submitted that the Defendant is an ex-employee of the Plaintiff Company and the registered owner of the website, "http://www.atsinfosystem.com/". It is submitted that the defendant is the owner of the aforementioned website and also the person in-charge of and responsible for the conduct, business and operations of the aforementioned website. It is submitted that on searching "ATS Infosytem Software Pvt. Ltd." on the internet address of the website is shown as, "Behind Fatima Hospital, Chandmari Mau Nath Bhanjan, Imiliya, Mau. Uttar Pradesh-275101" which is also the permanent residential address of the defendant as per the plaintiff's record. In order to be sure, the plaintiff also took help from a Domain Intelligence Organization to gain more information about the website, and CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 5 of 35 :6: the domain report depicted that the said website has been registered by someone named "Anand" on 13.08.2013.
8. The Plaintiff conducts a regular audit over the internet and thereby came across the illicit activities of the Defendant on the internet. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant is selling various modules having either a similar code structure or a similar User Interface end as that of the plaintiff's original modules such as, "Prestashop", the code structure of the Plaintiff's Prestashop Custom Payment module and the Defendant's Custom Payment Options with additional Fee / Discount Module has been either verbatim copied or has been modified to a certain extent so as to create a farce of innovation on various junctures by the defendant.
9. The Defendant was employed with the Plaintiff and duly executed an Employment, Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement. As per Clause 11(A) of the said agreement, it was the duty of defendant not to disclose "Employer's Confidential Information" to anyone without written consent of the employer/plaintiff. The Defendant resigned from the Plaintiff's office and, allegedly, misused confidential data and source code obtained during employment.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 6 of 35 :7:10. The Defendant has been a former employee of the Plaintiff, from 04.06.2018 to 10.09.2019 has been carrying on the infringing activities by copying code structure or user interface of the plaintiff's module and illegally selling them from its website, www.atsinfosystem.com. As per the Plaintiff, during and after his employment, the Defendant developed and operated a website and online accounts through which he started selling software modules. The Plaintiff alleges that several modules sold by the Defendant are either verbatim copies or substantially similar to the Plaintiff's original software in terms of source code, structure and user interface. According to the Plaintiff, upon conducting an internal audit and online investigation, it was discovered that the Defendant was selling infringing software modules on his own website and on third- party platforms, including Prestashop. The Plaintiff asserts that even where minor modifications were made, the Defendant's products remain derivative works of the Plaintiff's copyrighted software, created without any license or consent.
11. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant has not only copied the software products but has also verbatim copied the Plaintiff's Software License Agreement and Software Customization Policy from the Plaintiff's website and displayed the same as his own. It is the Plaintiff's case that these acts clearly establish dishonest intent and misuse of confidential information and resources obtained during the Defendant's employment with the Plaintiff, in violation of the employment CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 7 of 35 :8: and confidentiality agreements. Upon discovering the alleged infringement, the Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 01.11.2019 to the Defendant, calling upon him to stop all infringing activities and to remove the infringing content. Despite service of the notice, the Defendant allegedly failed to comply and continued to sell the impugned software products. The Plaintiff claims that such continued acts have caused substantial financial loss and irreparable damage to its business and goodwill.
Case of the Defendant
12. The defendant has contested the present suit by filing a Written Statement. The defendant submits that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as this Court does not have territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint is not maintainable in its present form. The suit has not been properly instituted, as it has not been signed, verified, or filed by a duly authorised and competent person on behalf of the plaintiff company. The defendant denies that Mr. Vipin Kumar Sahu is a Director of the plaintiff company or that he was duly authorised by a valid board resolution to institute the present suit. The alleged board resolution dated 21.01.2019 is stated to be with respect to some other case and is misused by the plaintiff. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims regarding its scale of business, development of software, web extensions, mobile CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 8 of 35 :9: applications, and ownership of copyrights. It is stated that the plaintiff used open-source platforms and copied code from the internet with the help of its employees. It is submitted that the plaintiff company used to ask its employees to copy the code ro softwares from internet. The defendant states that he was employed with the plaintiff only from 04.06.2018 to 10.09.2019 and had resigned due to non-payment of salary and pressure from the plaintiff company. The defendant denies ownership or control of the domain "atsinfosystem.com" after the year 2017. It is stated that the said domain was purchased by the defendant in 2013 for resale purposes and was sold to a third party in 2017. The defendant is not responsible for any activities carried out on the said domain thereafter. The defendant denies all allegations of copyright infringement, copying of source code, user interface, modules, software, or misuse of confidential information. It is submitted that similarities, if any, arise due to use of common open-source platforms and publicly available development guidelines. The defendant further denies allegations of selling plaintiff's products, earning unlawful profits, stealing data, violating licence agreements, or indulging in unfair trade practices. The defendant asserts that he has no control over the website or related accounts after 2017. The defendant denies receipt of the alleged legal notice dated 01.11.2019 and submits that no cause of action has arisen against him, as he had no involvement with the alleged infringing activities. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims of loss, damage, goodwill erosion, or entitlement to damages, rendition of accounts, or injunctive relief. The defendant denies CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 9 of 35 : 10 : that any criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code, Copyright Act, 1957, or violation of advertising standards has been committed by him. The defendant submits that the suit is based on false, vague, and unsubstantiated allegations, lacks cause of action, and has been filed to harass the defendant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the defendant prays that the plaint be dismissed with costs.
Replication and Issues
13. The plaintiff has filed the present replication to the written statement filed by the defendant, denying all allegations made therein except those specifically admitted. It is stated that this Court has territorial jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as the plaintiff carries on business from its office in New Delhi and through its website, and the infringing material has been made available for sale and access in Delhi. The objection regarding improper signing, verification, and authorization of the suit is also denied. It is asserted that the suit has been duly instituted by an authorized Director of the plaintiff company pursuant to a valid Board Resolution dated 21.01.2019. On merits, the plaintiff has reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and denied the contrary assertions of the defendant. The plaintiff has denied the allegation that its software, modules, or plug-ins were copied from open-source platforms, and has asserted that the platform is open source but plug-ins are original works and proprietary creations of the CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 10 of 35 : 11 : plaintiff in which copyright subsists. It is submitted that the defendant has copied from the plug-ins of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the defendant, who is an ex-employee of the plaintiff, has unlawfully copied the plaintiff's source code and user interface, thereby infringing the plaintiff's copyright and violating the terms of service. The plaintiff has denied the defendant's claim that the domain name "atsinfosystem.com"
was sold in the year 2017. It is asserted that no document has been placed on record to prove such sale, and that available records indicate that the defendant continued to exercise control over the said domain. It is further stated that the alleged transfer of the domain took place only after receipt of summons in the present suit, and that the same was done to create a false defence. The plaintiff has also denied the authenticity and reliability of the documents relied upon by the defendant in this regard. The allegations that the plaintiff company was not financially stable, failed to pay salaries, or compelled the defendant to resign have been categorically denied. It is asserted that the plaintiff company was functioning smoothly and that salaries of all employees, including the defendant, were paid regularly. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant left the employment on his own and thereafter indulged in illegal activities, which compelled the plaintiff to institute the present suit. The plaintiff has also denied the allegations regarding non- receipt of legal notice by the defendant and has stated that the defendant was in fact accessing his email during the relevant period. The objections regarding lack of cause of action, absence of infringement, and lack of jurisdiction have been denied in CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 11 of 35 : 12 : entirety. In conclusion, the plaintiff has reiterated that the defendant has committed acts of copyright infringement and unfair trade practices, and has prayed that the written statement be rejected and the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.
14. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 29.01.2025 and 22.05.2025 as under:
1. Whether this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present matter? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of account, as prayed for? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
6. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
15. After the framing of issues, Local Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of recording the evidence of the parties and the evidence of both the parties was recorded before the Ld. Local Commissioner.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 12 of 35 : 13 :16. PW-1, Sh. Puskar Kumar, led his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/A, wherein he has made similar deposition to that of contents of the plaint. The witness has further relied upon the following documents :-
1. Ex.PW-1/1- Copy of certificate of registration pertaining to the aforesaid change of state, issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 10.02.217.
2. Ex.PW-1/2-True print of master data of the plaintiff company taken from the official website of ROC showing its present registered address.
3. Ex.PW-1/3- Certified true extracts of Board Resolution dated 14.02.2023 authorized Mr. Pushkar Kumar.
4. Ex.PW-1/4- A table showing sales made by the plaintiff company during the period from October 2017 to September 2019.
5. Ex.PW-1/5- A sample of the End User License Agreement/Softwa License Agreement of the plaintiff.
6. Ex.PW-1/6- A screenshot showing the address of the website (Anand).
7. Ex.PW-1/7- Copy of the basic domain report for www.atsinfosystem.com.
8. Ex.PW-1/8- A comprehensive compilation of all the similarities in the sources code of the various Plaintiff's and Defendant module.
9. Ex.PW-1/9- An extensive compilation of the similarities of user interface end between the modules mentioned in the table.
10.Ex.PW-1/10(Colly) Copy of the appointment letter dated CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 13 of 35 : 14 : 30.05.2018 of the defendant with Annexure thereto.
11.Ex.PW-1/11(Colly) - Copy of employment, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement signed by the defendant.
12.Ex.PW-1/12- True printout of the email sent by the defendant resigning from his position.
13.Ex.PW-1/13- Copy of defendant Relieving Letter dt. 10.09.2019 issued by the plaintiff.
14.Ex.PW-1/14 The printout of the plaintiff's software License Agreement taken from its website.
15.Ex.PW-1/15- The screenshot of the Defendant's Software License Agreement taken from its website.
16.Ex.PW-1/16- The printout taken from the Plaintiff's website of its Software Customization Policy.
17.Ex.PW-1/17- The printout of the screenshots taken from the Defendant's website of its Software Customization guidelines.
18.Ex.PW-1/18-Office copy of the Legal Notice dt. 01.11.2019 and the original postal receipt.
19.Ex.PW-1/19-Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
17. The witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant, however, his cross-examination shall be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence. PE was, thereafter, closed.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 14 of 35 : 15 :Defendant's Evidence
18. DW-1 Sh. Anand Kumar Prajapati, led his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW1/A, and made similar deposition to that of the contents of the written statement. The witness has further relied on the following documents:-
rely upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.DW-1/1- Copy of mail dated 05.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 in Page 7 of list of documents.
2. Ex.DW-1/2-Copy of chat with Godaddy customer support.
3. Ex.DW-1/3- Copy of domain IQ disclaimer.
4. Ex.DW-1/4- Copy of screenshots of atsinfosystem.com at page 8 to 9 of document filed alongwith written statement.
5. Ex.DW-1/5- Copy of domain information regarding atsinfosystem.com.
All 6. of Ex.DW-1/6- Documents showing similarity in coding modules/addons/software etc. of plaintiff and open source platform.
7. Ex.DW-1/7- Copy of custom payment module of plaintiff.
8. Ex.DW-1/8- Copy of result regarding custom payment is filed in list of documents at Page 12.
9. Ex.DW-1/9- Copy of admin login as customer of plaintiff as filed in list of documents at Page 11.
10. Ex.DW-1/10- Copy of admin login as customer of plaintiff as filed in list of documents at Page 13 (already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D1).
11. Ex.DW-1/11- Copy of medical records filed along with the written statement.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 15 of 35 : 16 :12. Ex.DW-1/12-List of modules access of plaintiff.
13. Ex.DW-1/13-Copy of email dated 02.07.2020.
19. This witness was also cross-examined at length. However, his cross-examination shall be also considered at the time of appreciation of evidence. DE was, thereafter, closed.
Final arguments on behalf of plaintiff
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts and damages on account of infringement of its copyrighted software modules and breach of confidentiality obligations by the Defendant, who is a former employee of the Plaintiff Company. At the outset, It is submitted that the objection raised by the Defendant regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction is wholly untenable. The Plaintiff has placed on record Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/2, which establish that the Plaintiff carries on business in New Delhi. Under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Plaintiff is entitled to institute the present suit at the place where it carries on business. The infringing material was also accessible and offered for sale within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff also places reliance upon Board of Resolution (Annexure-P3) to contend that the Board of Resolution authorizing, Sh. Vipin Kumar Sahu, as the AR to institute the present suit was also passed at plaintiff's office situated at Nehru Place, Delhi, within the CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 16 of 35 : 17 : territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
21. It is submitted that the sales data placed on record as Ex. PW-1/4 demonstrates Sales of the plaintiff company at Delhi for the period from October 2017 to September 2019 in order to substantiate its claim of territorial jurisdiction. The Defendant has not led any credible evidence to dispute the Plaintiff's business activities.
22. It is further submitted that the software modules developed by the Plaintiff qualify as "computer programmes"
and "literary works" within the meaning of Sections 2(ffc) and 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff, being the employer, is the first owner of copyright in works created by its employees during the course of employment in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement executed by the Defendant (Ex. PW-1/10 and Ex. PW-1/11) clearly establish the employer-employee relationship and the confidentiality obligations binding upon the Defendant.
23. It is submitted that the Defendant admittedly remained in employment of the Plaintiff from 04.06.2018 to 10.09.2019. During this period, he had access to the Plaintiff's proprietary source code and internal systems. It is submitted that access to copyrighted material coupled with subsequent substantial similarity raises a strong presumption of copying. The plaintiff contents that upon learning that company had initiated action against certain employees for copying and/ or using the CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 17 of 35 : 18 : Company's proprietary software and engaging in infringing
24. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further argued that the Plaintiff has placed on record Ex. PW-1/8, which is a comprehensive compilation demonstrating similarities in the source code of the Plaintiff's and Defendant's modules. Ex. PW-1/9 further demonstrates similarities in user interface and structural layout. It is submitted that these similarities are not superficial; rather, they pertain to structure, sequence and organization of the code. In copyright law, substantial similarity is sufficient to establish infringement. The Plaintiff contended that upon learning that the Company had initiated action against certain employees for copying and /or using the Company' s proprietary software and engaging in infringing activities, the concerned employees tendered their resignations. It is further submitted that such resignations were tendered under the pretext of alleged non- payment of dues by the Company in a timely manner. However, according to the Plaintiff, no documentary proof or material has been placed on record by the said employees to substantiate the allegation of any delay in payment of their dues.
25. It is argued that the Defendant's plea that similarities arise due to use of common open-source platforms is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the Plaintiff does not claim copyright in the open-source platforms themselves but in its independently developed extensions and modules built over such platforms and the Defendant has failed to establish that the impugned portions of the code are part of publicly available open-source CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 18 of 35 : 19 : repositories.
26. It is further submitted that the Defendant has not only copied the Plaintiff's software modules but has also verbatim reproduced the Plaintiff's Software License Agreement and Software Customization Policy, as demonstrated from Ex. PW- 1/14, Ex. PW-1/15, Ex. PW-1/16 and Ex. PW-1/17. The reproduction of contractual documents cannot be attributed to coincidence or open-source usage and clearly evidences dishonest intention.
27. It is further argued that the Plaintiff has also placed on record Ex. PW-1/7, being the domain report of www.atsinfosystem.com, which connects the Defendant to the impugned website. It is submitted that the Defendant's assertion that he sold the domain in 2017 is unsupported by any registered transfer document or credible proof of lawful transfer prior to institution of the suit. The burden to prove such transfer lay upon the Defendant, which he has failed to discharge.
28. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the Defendant's reliance on informal communications with domain service providers does not establish divestment of ownership. The plea of sale appears to be an afterthought, particularly in view of the Plaintiff's specific assertion that the alleged transfer took place only after receipt of summons.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 19 of 35 : 20 :29. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has further proved issuance of cease-and-desist notice dated 01.11.2019 (Ex. PW- 1/18). The Defendant's denial of receipt is bald and unsupported. In any case, as per plaintiff, continuation of infringing activities even after institution of the present proceedings demonstrates deliberate and conscious infringement.
30. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the testimony of PW-1 has remained consistent and cogent. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no material contradiction or admission favourable to the Defendant has been elicited. On the contrary, the Defendant's testimony contains inconsistencies regarding domain ownership, access to modules and alleged independent development.
31. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the essential ingredients for establishing copyright infringement, namely ownership of valid copyright, access by the Defendant, and substantial similarity, stand duly proved on record. The Defendant has failed to produce any independent development records, source history or technical documentation to establish that his modules were independently created.
32. In view of the established infringement, it is submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from reproducing, distributing, selling or otherwise exploiting the infringing modules. It is argued that CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 20 of 35 : 21 : continued availability of infringing software in the digital domain causes irreparable injury to the Plaintiff's goodwill and market reputation. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is also entitled to mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to remove all infringing modules, source code and related materials from his website and third-party platforms. As regards rendition of accounts, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the details of sales and profits earned by the Defendant are within his exclusive knowledge. The Plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 40,00,000/-. It is submitted that considering the nature of infringement, breach of confidentiality by a former employee, deliberate copying of source code and license agreements, and continued commercial exploitation, the claim is reasonable and justified. Even otherwise, this Court may award compensatory and/or punitive damages to deter such misconduct.
33. It is submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the failure of the Defendant to substantiate his defence, all issues framed by this Court deserve to be decided in favour of the Plaintiff, and the suit deserves to be decreed as prayed for with costs.
Defendant's evidence
34. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the present suit is wholly misconceived, based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations, and deserves to be dismissed with costs. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 21 of 35 : 22 : proved that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The Defendant is a resident of Mau, Uttar Pradesh.
35. It is further submitted that the institution of the present suit itself is defective. The Defendant has specifically disputed the authority of the person who instituted the suit. The alleged board resolution relied upon by the Plaintiff does not specifically authorize institution of the present proceedings. The Plaintiff has failed to prove proper authorization in accordance with law.
36. The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff has not proved that it owns any valid and subsisting copyright in the alleged modules. It is contended that the Plaintiff has only made a bald assertion of ownership and has not placed on record the original source code,or any material to show that the source code is an "original literary work" within the meaning of Copyrights Act, 1957. The Defendant further states that the plaintiff modules were developed using open-source platforms. Therefore, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to establish that its source code is original and independently created.
37. It is submitted that the Defendant has specifically relied upon documents (Ex. DW-1/6) demonstrating that similar coding patterns exist in open-source repositories. The Plaintiff has not rebutted this technical evidence with any independent expert report. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has merely produced self-serving comparison charts (Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 22 of 35 : 23 :PW-1/9). These charts are unilateral compilations prepared by the Plaintiff itself and do not constitute expert evidence. No independent forensic or technical expert has been examined to prove alleged copying.
38. It is submitted that the law is well settled that in cases of software developed on open-source architecture, mere similarity is insufficient. The Plaintiff must prove substantial and material copying of original elements. The Plaintiff has failed to identify which specific lines of code constitute its proprietary and original contribution. It is further submitted that the Defendant was employed with the Plaintiff only from 04.06.2018 to 10.09.2019. The domain atsinfosystem.com was purchased in 2013 and, as stated in the written statement, was sold in 2017, much prior to the Defendant's employment with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the allegation that the Defendant developed infringing products using Plaintiff's confidential information is factually incorrect.
39. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not produced any legally admissible proof that the Defendant owned or controlled the domain during the relevant period. The domain report relied upon by the Plaintiff is not conclusive proof of ownership. On the contrary, it is submitted that the Defendant has placed documents on record to show that he had no control over the domain after 2017.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 23 of 35 : 24 :40. The allegation that the Defendant copied the Plaintiff's License Agreement and Customization Policy is denied. It is submitted that similarity in legal language is common in the software industry. The Plaintiff has not proved authorship of such license text or originality thereof. The Defendant has also denied receipt of the alleged legal notice dated 01.11.2019.
41. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 is largely repetitive of the plaint and does not constitute independent proof. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that the Plaintiff uses open-source platforms. The Plaintiff has failed to distinguish between open-source elements and alleged proprietary components. On the other hand, the Defendant has consistently denied all allegations and has produced documents in support of his defence. The Plaintiff's case rests on suspicion and conjecture rather than legally admissible proof.
42. Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that it is a settled principle that injunction cannot be granted merely on allegations; infringement must be clearly established. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that all issues be decided in favour of the Defendant, and the suit be dismissed with costs as the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon it.
Findings of the Court CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 24 of 35 : 25 :
43. On the basis of pleadings, arguments rendered by both the parties, evidence led by both the parties and the documents filed in support of their case, my issue wise findings are as under:-
(i) Whether this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter? OPD
44. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant. The Defendant has raised a specific preliminary objection that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Since jurisdiction strikes at the very root of this Court's authority to adjudicate, this issue is required to be determined at the outset before entering into the merits of the controversy.
45. The Plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court primarily on two grounds: firstly, that it carries on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957; and secondly, that the alleged infringing material was made available for access and sale in Delhi through the Defendant's website, thereby giving rise to a cause of action within the territorial limits of this Court.
46. It is therefore necessary to examine the statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction and the judicial interpretation thereof. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that a suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 25 of 35 : 26 : resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant resides or carries on business within the territorial limits of this Court. The Defendant is admittedly a resident of Uttar Pradesh.
47. Section 62(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that every suit or civil proceeding regarding infringement of copyright shall be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction. Section 62(2) further provides an for what shall be included in such "District Court" for the purposes of sub-clause 1, thereby an additional forum by stating that such suit may be instituted in the District Court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff "actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain," notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
48. The scope and ambit of Section 62(2) has been conclusively interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 62(2) is an enabling provision intended to provide convenience to the plaintiff but cannot be interpreted in a manner that encourages forum shopping. It was held that where the cause of action arises at a place where the plaintiff also has a subordinate office, the suit must be filed at that place and not at a distant location merely because the plaintiff has a principal office there. The provision cannot be misused to drag a defendant to a forum CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 26 of 35 : 27 : having no real connection with the dispute. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment (Supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"23. Considering the first aspect of aforesaid principle, the common law which was existing before the provisions of law were passed was section 20 of the CPC. It did not provide for the plaintiff to institute a suit except in accordance with the provisions contained in section 20. The defect in existing law was inconvenience/deterrence caused to the authors suffering from financial constraints on account of having to vindicate their intellectual property rights at a place far away from their residence or the place of their business. The said mischief or defect in the existing law which did not provide for the plaintiff to sue at a place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, was sought to be removed. Hence, the remedy was provided incorporating the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act. The provisions enabled the plaintiff or any of them to file a suit at the aforesaid places. But if they were residing or carrying on business or personally worked for gain already at such place, where cause of action has arisen, wholly or in part, the said provisions have not provided additional remedy to them to file a suit at a different place. The said provisions never intended to operate in that field. The operation of the provisions was limited and their objective was clearly to enable the plaintiff to file a suit at the place where he is ordinarily residing or carrying on business etc., as enumerated above, not to go away from such places. The Legislature has never intended that the plaintiff should not institute the suit where he ordinarily resides or at its Head Office or registered office or where he otherwise carries on business or personally works for gain where the cause of action too has arisen and should drag the defendant to a subordinate office or other place of business which is at a far distant place under the guise of the fact that the plaintiff/corporation is carrying on business through branch or otherwise at such other place also. If such an interpretation is permitted, as rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, the abuse of the provision will take place. Corporations and big conglomerates etc. might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country. Interpretation otherwise would permit them to institute infringement proceedings at a far flung place and at unconnected place as compared to a place where plaintiff is carrying on their business, and at such place, cause of action too has arisen. In the instant cases, the principal place of business is, admittedly, in Mumbai and the cause of action has also arisen in Mumbai. Thus, the provisions CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 27 of 35 : 28 : of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi court in the aforesaid circumstances to entertain such suits. The Delhi court would have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it.
24. The avoidance of counter mischief to the defendant is also necessary while giving the remedy to the plaintiff under the provisions in question. It was never visualised by the law makers that both the parties would be made to travel to a distant place in spite of the fact that the plaintiff has a remedy of suing at the place where the cause of action has arisen where he is having head office/carrying on business etc. The provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act provide for the authors/trade marks holders to sue at their ordinary residence or where they carry on their business. The said provisions of law never intended to be oppressive to the defendant. The Parliamentary Debate quoted above has to be understood in the manner that suit can be filed where the plaintiff ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Discussion was to provide remedy to plaintiff at convenient place; he is not to travel away. Debate was not to enable plaintiff to take defendant to farther place, leaving behind his place of residence/business etc. The right to remedy given is not unbriddled and is subject to the prevention of abuse of the aforesaid provisions, as discussed above. Parliament never intended that the subject provisions to be abused by the plaintiff by instituting suit in wholly unconnected jurisdiction. In the instant cases, as the principal place of business is at Mumbai the cause of action is also at Mumbai but still the place for suing has been chosen at Delhi. There may be a case where plaintiff is carrying on the business at Mumbai and cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. Plaintiff is having branch offices at Kanyakumari and also at Port Blair, if interpretation suggested by appellants is acceptable, mischief may be caused by such plaintiff to drag a defendant to Port Blair or Kanyakumari. The provisions cannot be interpreted in the said manner devoid of the object of the Act."
49. Thus, even under Section 62(2), the plaintiff must establish that it "actually and voluntarily carries on business"
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in a real, substantive manner and not merely formal manner. Mere assertion is insufficient; there must be cogent documentary evidence.CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 28 of 35 : 29 :
50. In the present case, the Plaintiff has asserted that it carries on business from Regus Office Centre Services Pvt. Ltd., Level 15, Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. However, no license agreement, rental receipt, GST registration, tax return, employee attendance record, electricity bill, or any other independent documentary evidence has been placed on record to establish that the Plaintiff was actually and voluntarily conducting business operations from the said premises at the relevant time.
51. Ex. PW-1/2, which is the Company Master Data of the Plaintiff, shows the registered office at Office No. 112, Laxmi Chamber, D-223, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi (East Delhi). It is not in dispute that the said address does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, the existence of a registered office by itself does not constitute a cause of action nor does it automatically establish that the plaintiff carries on business within the jurisdiction of this Court for the purposes of Section 62(2).
52. The Plaintiff has also relied upon Resolution No. 005/2019 dated 21.01.2019, wherein it is mentioned that a board meeting was held at Regus Office Centre Services Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi. However, at the top of the said document the address of Noida, Uttar Pradesh is mentioned. Even assuming that a meeting was held at Nehru Place, the mere holding of a board meeting to authorize the director as a CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 29 of 35 : 30 : Authorized Representative of the company to institute the present proceedings does not amount to carrying on business within the meaning of Section 62(2). A board resolution does not form part of the cause of action in an infringement suit.
53. Ex. PW-1/3 also mentions the address of Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Ex. PW-1/10, which is the appointment letter of the Defendant, mentions Noida as the place of employment. At the foot of the said letter, the registered office is shown as T-4, Plot No. 3, Manish Twin Plaza, Sector-4, Dwarka, Delhi-110078, which is admittedly outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Several other documents on record similarly refer to Noida as the operational address.
54. From the documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff itself, it is evident that the principal place of operations of the Plaintiff was at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The Plaintiff has failed to establish that it was actually and voluntarily carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in any substantial or meaningful manner.
55. The Plaintiff has next contended that the cause of action arose within Delhi because the alleged infringing material was made available for access and sale through a website accessible in Delhi. The law on internet-based jurisdiction has been authoritatively laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cable CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 30 of 35 : 31 : News Network Inc Vs. Ctvn Calcutta Television Network Pvt, 2023 DHC 2862. It was held that mere accessibility of a website in a particular jurisdiction is insufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff must show that the defendant purposefully availed himself of the jurisdiction by targeting customers therein and that a commercial transaction was concluded within that jurisdiction. The Hon'ble High Court clarified that there must be evidence of an actual transaction within the jurisdiction or at least purposeful targeting of customers therein. Passive accessibility is not enough. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment (Supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"40.5 To advert, now, to the principles emanating from the decisions of Division Bench of this Court. Banyan Tree directly addressed the issue of whether a suit for infringement or passing off could be filed before a court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff did not carry on business, on the ground that the defendant had hosted a universally accessible website. Though, in para 8 of the decision, the Division Bench observed that it was not examining the matter from the point of view of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as it was not dealing with an infringement suit, the subsequent principles, as laid down by the Division Bench have expressly been made applicable both to infringement and passing off cases. On the issue of whether Banyan Tree applies in infringement cases, Division Benches of this Court have differed. While the decisions in World Wrestling Entertainment and Ultra Home Construction hold the decision in Banyan Tree not to be applicable because it considered only Section 20 of the CPC, and not Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as also because it was a case of passing off, and not of infringement, the subsequent Division Bench in Tata Sons has expressly held Banyan Tree to be applicable in infringement cases as well. Banyan Tree, for its part, clearly states that the principles laid down would apply both in cases of infringement and passing off. For the present, therefore, I have to treat the decision in Banyan Tree as applicable both to infringement as well as passing off cases.
40.7 The Division Bench in Banyan Tree held that mere CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 31 of 35 : 32 : accessibility of a website in Delhi would not ipso facto clothe this Court with jurisdiction to entertain a passing off suit. Jurisdiction could not be vested by a passive website, which had no intention to specifically target audiences outside the State where the website was hosted. It was further held that, for the purposes of an action for passing off or for infringement, where the plaintiff does not carry on business within the jurisdiction of the forum court - i.e., the court whose jurisdiction was sought to be invoked - and where there was no long arm statute, the onus would be on the plaintiff to establish purposeful availment, by the defendant, of the jurisdiction of the forum court. Such purposeful availment could not be demonstrated merely by the defendant's website being interactive. Additionally, it would have to be shown that the nature of the activity carried on by the defendant using its website was with the intention to conclude a commercial transaction with the website user. "Purposeful availment", it was held, necessarily required the plaintiff to establish that, firstly, the website of the defendant was interactive and, secondly, that the website permitted commercial transactions to be concluded with a user. Importantly, the Division Bench further clarified that the jurisdiction of the forum court would not be attracted merely because the defendant's website was interactive and was accessible in the forum state. The Court held that, before arriving at a decision regarding the competence of the forum court to adjudicate on the lis, the Court would have to examine (i) the degree of interactivity, (ii) the nature of the activity permissible and (iii) whether it results in a commercial transaction.
Further, it would have to be shown that (i) the defendant specifically targeted the plaintiff, or other customers, within the forum state and that (ii) such specific targeting resulted in injury or harm to the plaintiff within the forum state. Viewers of the defendant's website in the forum state were required to have to be shown to be specifically targeted."
56. In the present case, the Plaintiff has not produced a single invoice showing sale of the alleged infringing module to a customer located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No payment gateway record, no GST return, no customer affidavit, and no transaction details have been placed on record to demonstrate that any commercial transaction took place CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 32 of 35 : 33 : within the jurisdiction of this Court.
57. There is also no material to show that the Defendant specifically targeted customers within the territorial limits of this Court. No advertisement, communication, promotional material or targeted outreach within this jurisdiction has been proved. In absence of evidence of a completed commercial transaction within the jurisdiction, the requirement laid down in Cable News Network Inc Vs. Ctvn Calcutta Television Network Pvt (Supra) is not satisfied. Mere availability of a website throughout India cannot confer jurisdiction upon every court in the country.
58. The Plaintiff has also not shown that any act of copying, uploading, sale, or distribution occurred within the territorial limits of this Court. The Defendant is admittedly based in Uttar Pradesh, and there is no evidence connecting the alleged infringing activity to Delhi.
59. Applying the principles laid down in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (Supra), this Court cannot permit the Plaintiff to invoke Section 62(2) in a manner that results in forum shopping, particularly when the cause of action has not been shown to arise within this jurisdiction and when the Plaintiff's principal operations appear to be outside the jurisdiction.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 33 of 35 : 34 :60. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed on the basis of vague pleadings or presumptions. It must be established through cogent, admissible and reliable evidence. The Plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden.
Conclusion
61. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that it actually and voluntarily carries on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff has further failed to establish that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Court under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
62. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, it cannot adjudicate upon the remaining issues on merits. It is expressly clarified that this Court has not examined and has not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the claims or defences of either party. All findings recorded herein are confined strictly to the question of territorial jurisdiction.
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 34 of 35 : 35 :63. Consequently, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Plaintiff is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced & dictated Neelam by Neelam singh
in the open Court on this Date:
20th day of February, 2026 singh 2026.02.20
16:10:31 +0530
(NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
Commercial Court-05
South East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS (Comm) 174/2020 M/s Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anand Kumar Prajapti Page 35 of 35