Bangalore District Court
; Novell Inc vs ; Netware Systems Private Limited on 31 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH NO.10]
Dated this day the 31st January, 2015
PRESENT
SRI K.AMARANARAYANA., B.Com., LL.M.,
XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge.
O.S.No.7750/2003
Plaintiff ; Novell Inc,
A Company incorporated under the
Laws of Delware with its Principal
Office at No.122, East 1700, South Provo,
Utah - 84601, United States of America,
Represented by its Authorised signatory
Seetharaman.
[Rep.By.Sri.Poovaiah Adv for plaintiff]
--V/S--
Defendant ; Netware Systems Private Limited,
A Company Incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act-1956
having its registered office at No.20/2,
Gangadhar Chetty Road,
Opp; RBANMS Play Grounds, Ulsoor,
B A N G A L O R E - 560042.
[Rep.By.Sri.T.A.S Adv for defendant]
--2-- O.S.No.7750/2003
Date of institution of suit ; 28.10.2003.
Nature of the suit [Pronote, ; Permanent Injunction,
Suit for declaration and ; Render Accounts,
Possession, suit for Injunction Mandatory Injunction &
etc] Damages.
Date of the commencement ; 27.10.2009.
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment ; 31.01.2015.
was pronounced.
Total Duration ; Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 03 03
(K.AMARANARAYANA)
XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant prays to pass judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its directors, partners, proprietors, servants, agents from passing off their registered trademark 'NETWARE' bearing No.497664 B Class No.9 that is pending registration bearing application No.743496 in Class-9 and 743497 in Class-16 or by use of the mark, word or name NETWARE or any other mark, word,
--3-- O.S.No.7750/2003 name or expression deceptively or otherwise similar there to as its trading style, corporate name or as part thereof, to direct the defendant to render an account of profits earned by adopting the name NETWARE, to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to provide the plaintiff an affidavit undertaking the destruction of all commodities and peripherals of the defendant bearing the NETWARE mark, word or name or any words, names or expressions deceptively similar thereto and for costs.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows;
(a) The plaintiff is a registered company having its principal office at USA and its business in India conducted through Novell Software Development (I) Private Limited. The plaintiff is a pioneer in the field of computer networking since its development and release of the Netware Software product in early 1980s. The plaintiff is a world largest network software and computer consultancy company, having major facilities at its headquarters in Utah, USA and at Bangalore and Mumbai in India. The defendant Company incorporated in the year 1997 is using "NETWARE", a name identical to the name of the plaintiffs main products, upon which their very existence and reputation rests. The defendant is engaged in the same business as that of plaintiff, namely in dealing with computer products of various
--4-- O.S.No.7750/2003 companies. They reincorporated as Novell Inc., with the object of designing and marketing computer software and hardware used for data works in January, 1983. Their products are coined and invented word NETWARE and have been used in India since 1987. Novell Software Development (I) Private Limited, Bangalore is a subsidiary of the plaintiff and ever since its incorporation in 1994, the said company has played a significant role in the development of Novell Net Services Software Products.
(b) Novell is engaged in providing a variety of services under the NETWARE brand. Their products have been sold in India for several years. The actions of defendant in carrying on similar business in taking a name which is attributable to them by virtue of its long presence in India. They have Website WWW.novell.com. They have total revenue of about 1150 millions US dollars in the fiscal year ending 2002, NETWARE accounted for 32% of the total revenue. Their trademark NETWARE is registered under No.597664 B in Class 9 in respect of computers, printers, parts and fittings and computer software is pending registration under application No.7434496 in Class-9 and 743497 in Class-16. On coming to know of the defendants business they caused issued notice dated; 28.8.2002 to cease and desist the defendant from using the impugned name
--5-- O.S.No.7750/2003 to cease and desist the defendant from using the impugned name NETWARE the defendant refused to comply the same. The defendant's use of the mark in relation to its business, identical to that of their trademark is calculated to deceive and mislead purchasers into its products/business. The defendant has illegally adopted their trademark NETWARE it will result in irreparable loss and injury to their goodwill and reputation and the loss cannot be compensated. Hence, the suit is filed for the above reliefs.
3. The defendant filed written statement denying the entire averments of plaint besides contending that their company incorporated under the provisions of companies Act registered before the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore bearing certificate No.8/21662 dated; 17.1.1997. They are carrying on business of manufacturers, dealers, importers, exporters, buyers and sellers in all kinds of computers, communications, electronic, electrical systems and CNC machineries, computer systems like main frame, mini and micro computer, desktop computers, laptops and palmtops, computer peripherals like printed circuit board, hard drivers, floppy drives, CD Rom's, Multimedia kits, cartridges tape drivers, mother board etc., software packages used in working of computers. They have acquired reputation and goodwill for the products they deal with. Their sales
--6-- O.S.No.7750/2003 run to a few lakhs of rupees and they have also spent large sum of money as promotional expenses on items being dealt with by them. There is no iota of confusion nor deception within the computer hardware business or to any unwary purchaser. They are not engaged in similar business of plaintiff. The plaintiff company is being largest network software and computer Consultancy Company. The plaintiff and defendant are engaged in different field of activity, and defendant basically engaged as dealers in selling computer hardware products to the various customers. The plaint filed by the plaintiff is not signed, verified in accordance with law by a duly authorized person and thereby the suit is not maintenable. The trademark is granted by the authorities under the Act can be granted for a product or Class of products only. Getting a blanket permission under the Act is not permissible as the act itself does not comtemplate. The claim of the plaintiff to have right over the name of Netware is unsustainable. The plaintiff cannot claim right over the name Netware in all classes of goods specified under the Act 1958. The plaintiff has given false and misleading statement that defendant is using their trademark in passing off their goods or business. The plaintiff has not taken any steps from 1997 till August, 2002 with regard to alleged passing off action by them. The plaintiff has failed to state which the consumer class affected by the business of the defendant. The suit is barred by
--7-- O.S.No.7750/2003 law. There is unexplained delay. The plaintiff has acquiesced in the open, continuous and extensive use of company name of the defendant all over India and extensive scale and thereby acquired great reputation and goodwill. Plaintiff was aware of the incorporation of the defendant company from the year 1997 and all the way has watched their growth in computer hardware products. The plaintiff filed the suit with dishonest intention on frivolous and speculative grounds. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages entitling the plaintiff in the course of the proceedings. On the above grounds the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. Based on the above pleadings the following issues and additional issues have been framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'NETWARE' as required under law?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that it has accumulated substantial goodwill and reputation in relation to the said trademark 'NETWARE'?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that on account of the views of 'NETWARE' by the defendant amounts to infringement of the registered trade Mark 'NETWARE' of the plaintiff?
--8-- O.S.No.7750/2003
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that adoption and use of the trademark 'NETWARE' by the defendant tantamount to passing off?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the plaint filed by the plaintiff is not signed, verified in accordance with law by a duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff and thereby no maintainable?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages against the defendant? If so what is the quantum?
7. What decree or order?
Additional Issues Framed on 5.12.2014.
1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as per section 134 of Trade Marks Act as contended by the defendant in its written statement?
2. Whether the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 due to its repeal under section 159 of the Act as contended by the defendant?
3. Whether the defendant proves acquiescence of the plaintiff in allowing them to use trademark without any interruption and objection since 1997?
--9-- O.S.No.7750/2003
5. The plaintiff to prove its case has examined its director as PW1, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and closed their side. The defendant to prove their defense has examined its Managing Director as DW1, got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D76 and closed their side.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has relied upon the following decisions;
1. AIR 1965 SC 980 (Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma -V/s- Navaratna Pharamaceutical Laboratories).
2. AIR 1972 SC 1359 (Parle Products (P) Limited - V/s- J.P & Co Mysore).
3. (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 73 (Cadila Health Care -V/s- Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited).
4. (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 145 (Satyam Infoway Limited -V/s- Sifynet Solutions (P) Limited).
5. AIR 2006 S.C 730 (M/s Dhodha House -V/s-
S.K.Matingi).
6. (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 573 (S.M.Dyechem Limited -V/s- Cadbury (India) Limited).
7. 1996 (5) Kar.LJ 446 (Kirloskar Proprietary Limited Pune and others -V/s- Kirloskar Dimensions Private Limited, Bangalore and others).
--10-- O.S.No.7750/2003
8. AIR 1992 DELHI 302 (Shree Gopal Engineering and Chemical Works -V/s- M/s POMX Laboratory).
Perused the evidence both oral and documentary placed by both plaintiff and the defendant and decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant in the light of fact of this case.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under;
Issue No.1 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.2 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.3 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.4 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.5 ; Does not arise in
view of amendment
of plaint.
Issue No.6 ; Negative.
Addl.Issue No.1 ; Negative.
Addl.Issue No.2` ; Negative.
Addl.Issue No.3 ; Negative.
For the following reasons.
REASONS
8. Addl.Issue No.1 to 3;- These three issues touching the
territorial jurisdiction of court and maintainability of suit. Before going to the merits of the case, it is proper to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the maintainability of suit. It is contended
--11-- O.S.No.7750/2003 by the defendant that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit under section 134 of Trade Marks Act-1999. The plaintiff cannot maintain the suit under the provisions of Trade Marks Act- 1999 due to its repeal under section 159 of the Act. It is further contended that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to use the trademark since 1997 and has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years and cannot contest the validity of registration of a subsequent trademark. Looking to the defense pleaded by the defendant these issues taken at the first instance. Admittedly, the plaintiff has registered its trademark 'NETWARE' in India under registered No.497664/09 in Class-9 and became registered proprietor.
9. A perusal of plaint, it is seen that the cause title of the plaint does not disclose the office address of plaintiff in Bangalore or in India. Para 8 of the plaint discloses that Novell Software Development (I) Private Limited, Bangalore is a subsidiary of the plaintiff and is the plaintiffs major software Research and Development Centre outside USA since 1994. Para-9 of the plaint discloses that the plaintiff has entered into partnership with a Mumbai-based, domestic enterprise-Onward Technologies Limited to form Onward Novell Software (India) Limited located at No.62,
--12-- O.S.No.7750/2003 M.I.D.C, 13th Street, Andheri (East) Mumbai. The oral evidence of PW1 speaks that the plaintiff commenced business in with its Subsidiary at Mumbai and Bangalore in India. Ex.P2 is the power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs company in favour of its subsidiary company at Bangalore namely Novell Software Development (I) Private Limited, Bangalore. Ex.P16 is the letter dated; 18.1.2008 written by the defendant to the plaintiffs Attorney-at-law, Remfry and Sagar, Gurgoan, National Capital Region, India. It is to be noted that the defendant did not deny the plaintiffs business in Bangalore and Mumbai in Ex.P16. Ex.P16 utmost construed to be an admission made by the defendant in respect of place of business of plaintiff in Bangalore through its subsidiary.
10. It is to be noted that the defendant has not registered the trade mark 'Netware' which is in use as part of corporate name and trading style Netware System (P) Limited, Bangalore. The suit is filed for infringement and for passing off action of the registered trademark 'NETWARE'. The plaintiff has established its business at Bangalore through its subsidiary. Therefore, this court got jurisdiction under section 134 of Trade Marks Act-1999. Thus, the contention taken by the defendant that this court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit is not sustainable.
--13-- O.S.No.7750/2003
11. Section 159 of Trade Marks Act-1999 deals with Repeal and Savings. The Trade Marks Act-1999 is replaced by The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act - 1958. The Trade Marks Act - 1999 came into force on 15.9.2003. The present suit came to be filed on 28.10.2003. Ex.P1 evident that the trademark was renewed from 12.9.2002 for a period of seven years. As per section 159 (4) of the Act any legal proceeding pending in any court at the commencement of this Act may be continued in that court as if this Act has not been passed. The present suit came to be filed subsequent to the commencement of Act of 1999. Therefore, the provisions of Trade Marks Act - 1999 is applicable to the case on hand and not The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act-1958. Thus, the contention of the defendant that the provisions of Trade Marks Act - 1999 is not applicable to the case on hand is not sustainable.
12. The defendant contended that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to use the trademark since 1997 and has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years and cannot claim infringement of trademark by the plaintiff. Section 33 prohibits the proprietor of an earlier trademark who has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years from opposing the use of the trademark in relation to the goods or services in relation to which it has been so used. Let me peruse the
--14-- O.S.No.7750/2003 evidence placed by the defendant proves the acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff. On going through the entire cross-examination of PW1, nothing is brought out by the defendant supporting their contention that the plaintiff had knowledge of using the trade name 'NETWARE' by the defendant since 1997. PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that as per Ex.D1 the defendant have traded with HCL Info system Limited. Reading the cross-examination of PW1 his evidence is not to the effect that he has knowledge of defendant using the trademark since 1997. Utmost the version stated by PW1 is a stray sentence and cannot hold to be an admission. Thus, Ex.D1 will not help the case of the defendant. During cross-examination, DW1 admits that the plaintiff came to know the existence of defendant only in the year 2002. When the plaintiff came to know about the existence of defendant in the year 2002 according to the defendant themselves, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has acquiescence of the use of trademark by the defendant for a continuous period of five years cannot be accepted. Thus, the defendant has failed to prove the acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of foregoing reasons and under the circumstances I answered Addl. Issue No.1 to 3 in the 'Negative'.
13. Issue No's 1 to 4 and 6;- The plaintiff pleaded that it is
--15-- O.S.No.7750/2003 the registered proprietor of the trademark 'NETWARE'. Ex.P1 is the Trademark Certificate issued by the Trade Mark Registry, Mumbai. It is to be noted that the defendant has not seriously challenged the registration of trademark by the plaintiff. Ex.P1 evident that the plaintiffs trademark 'NETWARE' was registered in India on 12.9.1988 and renewed time to time. There is nothing to indicate that the defendant questioned the validity of trademark 'NETWARE' before any authority. Therefore, the registration of the trademark 'NETWARE' became valid. Thus, section 28 of the Act confers exclusive right on the plaintiff to use the trademark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'NETWARE'.
14. It is the case of the plaintiff that it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the field of software and computer Consultancy Company since 1987 by using the trademark 'NETWARE'. The defendant denied the plaintiffs assertion and contended that they have not acquired goodwill and reputation by adopting the plaintiff's trademark. Therefore, burden is upon the plaintiff to show that it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation. Admittedly, the plaintiffs company is foreign based. The
--16-- O.S.No.7750/2003 plaintiff has relied upon the trademark certificate Ex.P1, copy of legal notices issued to the defendant and the oral evidence of DW1 and cross-examination of PW1. Ex.P1 evident that the plaintiff using the trademark NETWARE since 1987. The evidence of PW1 speaks that the plaintiff company updated NETWARE system in the year 1990 and had through its efforts secured nearly seventy percent of the market share. PW1 further speaks that the plaintiffs marketing is enriched all over the world including India and acquired goodwill and reputation in the field of trading software products.
15. On going through the entire cross-examination of PW1, nothing is made out by the defendant to believe that the plaintiff has not acquired goodwill and reputation in trading under the trademark 'NETWARE'. A single suggestion is put forth by the defendant to PW1 denying the evidence to the effect that the plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation under the trademark in 'NETWARE'. DW1 admits the issue legal notices Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. It is not in dispute that the defendant did not reply the legal notices Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. There is no reason explained by the defendant as to why they slept over the matter after noting the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 evident that the plaintiff indicated the goodwill and reputation acquired by them to the defendant by using the trademark.
--17-- O.S.No.7750/2003 Thus reading the oral evidence of PW1 together with the legal notices Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 it is clear that the plaintiff proved the acquisition of goodwill and reputation in the field of trading Software products.
16. It is seen from the pleadings and the evidence placed on record by both parties, the business which the plaintiff and the defendant are doing is similar. Ex.P1, Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 and the oral evidence of PW1 would indicate that the plaintiff started business in India in the year 1987 under the trademark 'NETWARE' and got the registration of trademark in the year 1988. The documents produced by the defendant at Ex.D1 to Ex.D76 would indicate that the defendant is doing business of Software and Hardware products in the name Netware Systems private Limited since 1997. It is well founded from the documents relied upon by the defendant that it has been using the trade name 'NETWARE' in its business. The defendant has failed to establish from the cross-examination of PW1 that the word NETWARE is a generic term and not invented by the plaintiff. There is nothing on record placed by the defendant to infer that the plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over the said mark. There is no evidence to indicate that the plaintiff had knowledge of usage of trademark by the defendant in the year 1997. The defendant has failed to bring the
--18-- O.S.No.7750/2003 plaintiff within the ambit of acquiescence as contemplated under section 33 of the Act.
17. The trademark "NETWARE" under defendant defendant's usage in the trade by prefix is identical and deceptively similar to that of the trademark of plaintiff. Looking to the nature of business of both plaintiff and defendant there is every chance of public getting confusion and the diverting of business of plaintiff. The plaintiff brought to the notice of defendant in the month April 2002 by issuing legal notice Ex.P12 that the use of trademark 'NETWARE' is similar and identical to their trademark and requested to stop using the same. The plaintiff also issued two notices Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 in the month of August, 2002 and October, 2002. It is to be noted that the defendant did not replied the notice. Thus, the issue of legal notices Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 would go to show that the plaintiff requested the defendant to stop using the trademark as may affect their business and amounts infringement. The oral evidence of DW1 and documentary evidence Ex.D1 to Ex.D76 clearly go to show that the defendant did not stop using the trademark 'NETWARE' by prefix which is identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark. The defendant have no registration relates to the mark 'NETWARE'. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark and got
--19-- O.S.No.7750/2003 every right to question the use of said mark by the defendant. The defendant did not stop using the mark despite issue of cease and desist notice. Thus, the act of the defendant in continuing the trade name of the company as 'NETWARE' amounts to infringement within the meaning of section of 29 of the Act.
18. It is held above that the plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation in the business by using the trademark 'NETWARE' . It has come up in the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 that the defendant was notified about the goodwill land reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant continued to use the offending trademark despite request made by the plaintiff. Looking to the business transaction of the defendant probably the defendant adopted the trademark 'NETWARE' to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. Therefore, the act of the defendant in adopting and using the trademark 'NETWARE' which is identical and deceptively similar to the trademark of plaintiff is tantamount to passing off goods as that of plaintiff.
19. Looking to the overall circumstances it is clear that the defendant infringed the plaintiff trademark 'NETWARE' and encashed the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The passing off
--20-- O.S.No.7750/2003 the goods by the defendant as that of plaintiff is well established. Therefore, the defendant shall have to restrained from infringing and passing off the goods under the trademark NETWARE by way of injunction. It is proper to direct the defendant to provide the plaintiff an affidavit undertaking the destruction of all commodities and peripherals of the defendant bearing the 'NETWARE' mark, word or name or any words, names or expressions, which is deceptively similar. In view of establishing the infringement of plaintiff's trademark, it is proper to direct the defendant to render accounts of profits earned by it from time it first adopted and used the name 'NETWARE' as its corporate name and trading style. Absolutely there is no evidence placed by the plaintiff to indicate that it has sustained damages because of use of trademark NETWARE by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for a damages of Rs.1,00,000/- . Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed except damages. Hence, I answered Issue No.1 to 4 in the 'Affirmative' and Issue No.6 in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit is decreed with costs. The defendant, its directors, partners, proprietors, servants and agents are hereby permanently restrained from infringing and passing off the plaintiffs registered trademark
--21-- O.S.No.7750/2003 'NETWARE' bearing No.497664 B (Class-9) and its mark, 'NETWARE' that is pending registration bearing application No.743496 (Class-9) and 743497 (Class-16) or by use of the mark, word or name 'NETWARE' or any other mark, word, name or expression deceptively or otherwise similar thereto as its trading style, corporate name or as a part thereof.
Further, the defendant is hereby directed to provide the plaintiff an affidavit undertaking the destruction of all commodities and peripherals of the defendant bearing the 'NETWARE' mark, word or name or any words, names or expressions deceptively similar thereto.
Further, the defendant is hereby directed to render an account of profits earned by it from the time it first adopted and used the name 'NETWARE' as its corporate name and trading style.
The prayer sought by the plaintiff to direct the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages is hereby dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Prepared by me on the Laptop, Print out by the judgment writer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this day the 31st January, 2015] [K.AMARANARAYANA] XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
--22-- O.S.No.7750/2003 ANNEXURES
1. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff;
PW1 ; Raghavendra Taggilal.
2. No, of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff;
Ex.P1 ; Trade Mark Certificate.
Ex.P2 ; Power Attorney.
Ex.P3 ; Apostille Certificate of USA.
Ex.P4 ; Apostille Certificate of USA.
Ex.P5 ; Apostille Certificate of USA.
Ex.P6 ; Apostille Certificate of USA.
Ex.P7 & 8 ; Original Hand Bills.
Ex.P9 ; Document showing netware winning.
Ex.P10 & 11; Certificates of authority signed by
Notary Public Jam Day.
Ex.P12 to 14; Office Copy of Legal Notices.
Ex.P15 ; Quotation.
Ex.P16 ; Copy of Reply of notice of defendant.
Ex.P17 ; Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Reply.
Ex.P18 & 19; Extract of Trademark applications of
Plaintiffs.
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant;
DW1 ; Madhavan.N.S.
4. No of documents marked on behalf of the defendant;
Ex.D1 ; Invoice marked through PW1.
--23-- O.S.No.7750/2003
Ex.D2 ; Invoice cum Delivery Challan of Pentagon
Automation.
Ex.D3 ; Delivery Challan cum Invoice of Circutak.
Ex.D4 ; Receipt of Microport.
Ex.D5 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of Microport.
Ex.D6 ; Invoice bill of Circutak.
Ex.D7 ; Delivery challan cum Invoice of Circutak.
Ex.D8 ; Delivery challan cum Invoice of Circutak.
Ex.D9 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of HCL Info.
Ex.D10 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of HCL Info.
Ex.D11 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of HCL Info.
Ex.D12` ; Invoice Bill of Circutak.
Ex.D13 to 18; Invoice cum Challans of HCL Frontline.
Ex.D19 ; Invoice of Crescents Computers.
Ex.D20 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of Unpac
Systems.
Ex.E21 ; Invoice of Redington (India) Limited.
Ex.D22 ; Invoice of Tech Pacific (India) Limited.
Ex.D23 ; Invoice cum Delivery Challan of Ingram
Micro (India) Limited.
Ex.D24 ; Invoice of Tell Excell information system.
Ex.D25 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of Ingram
Micro (India) Limited.
Ex.D26 & 27; Invoices of Redington (India) Limited.
Ex.D28 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of Ingram
Micro (India) Limited.
Ex.D29 ; Invoice of Well-Win Industry Limited.
Ex.D30 ; Invoice of Kinfotech Pvt Limited.
Ex.D31 & 32; Invoice of Neoteric Information Ltd.
Ex.D33 ; Invoice of Delink (India) Ltd.
Ex.D34 ; Invoice of Redington (India) Ltd.
Ex.D35 ; Invoice bill of Sogo computers.
Ex.D36 ; Invoice bill of Matrix Technologies Inc.
Ex.D37 ; Invoice/Dc of Anela Computer Systems Ltd.
--24-- O.S.No.7750/2003
Ex.D38 ; Invoice cum Delivery challan of Apsis.
Ex.D39 ; Invoice cum D/c of Micro Data Products.
Ex.D40 to 43; Invoice cum challans Matrix Technologies.
Ex.D44 ; Invoice of Texonic instruments. Ex.D45 ; Invoice of Eurotech.
Ex.D46 to 72; Invoice of Netware Systems (P) Ltd. Ex.D73 ; Notarized copy of membership certificate.
Ex.D74 ; Notarized Copy of Certificate of
Incorporation.
Ex.D75 ; Copy of Memorandum and Articles of
Association of Defendant Company.
Ex.P76 ; Board Resolution.
[K.AMARANARAYANA]
XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.