Bangalore District Court
Trimble Solutions Corporation vs Shekhar C Morabad on 26 June, 2025
KABC170033412024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU (CCH-87)
Present: Sri Jithendranath C.S., B.A., LL.M.,
LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 26th day of JUNE, 2025
Com.O.S.No.1670/2024
(Old No.4098/2016)
PLAINTIFF S : 1. TRIMBLE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
(Formerly Tekla Corporation),
A Company incorporated under the
laws of the State of Espoo,
Finland, having its office at:
Metsanpojankuja 1, 02130 Espoo,
Finland, herein represented by the
Power of Attorney Holder,
Mr.Vishal Ahuja.
2. TRIMBLE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED,
(Formerly Tekla India Private Limited)
A company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its office at :
Unit No.112-115, Building No.1,
Sector 1, Millennium Business Park,
Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra,
represented herein by its Power of
Attorney Holder, Mr.Vishal Ahuja.
Also At #43, 1st floor, 2nd Stage,
BHCS layout, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
2 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
Above Union Bank of India,
Near Chandra Layout BMTC depot,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka - 560040
(Reptd. by Sri Vivek Yavagal, advocate)
- AND -
DEFENDANTS : 1.MR.SHEKHAR C.MORABAD,
Partner at Glentéc Engineering Service
LLP & Director of Glentec Holdings Pvt.
Ltd., having office at #48, 4th Block,
4th Stage, Siddaiah Purnaik Road,
Basaweshwar Nagar,
Bangalore - 560079.
2. GLENTEC ENGINEERING SERVICE
LLP,
Limited Liability Partnership having
Office at #48, 4th Block. 4th Stage,
Siddaiah Purnaik Road, Basaweshwar
Nagar, Bangalore 560079, represented by
its Partner, MR. SHEKHAR C. MORABAD
Also at No. 104, Ullas Apartments, 12%
Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560003.
Also at Max Plaza, MRPL Road, Surathkal,
Mangalore - 575014.
3. M/s. MAYRAIN TRADING LLP,
A Limited Liability Partnership
having office at #48, 4th Block,
4th Stage, Siddaiah Purnaik Road,
Basaweshwar Nagar,
Bangalore 560079,
Represented by its Partner:
Mr. Sanjeev Nayak.
Also at Max Plaza, MRPL Road, Surathkal,
Mangalore - 575014.
3 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
4.GLENTEC HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.
A company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its office at #48, 4th Block,
4th Stage, Siddaiah Purnaik Road,
Basaweshwar Nagar,
Bangalore-560079,
Represented by its Partner:
Mr. Shekhar C. Morabad.
Also at Max Plaza, MRPL Road,
Surathkal, Mangalore - 575014.
(Reptd by Sri.M.V.Vedachala, advocate)
Date of institution of the suit : 07.06.2016
Nature of the suit [suit on
promote, suit for declaration and : decree of permanent
possession, suit for injunction] injunction for infringement of
copyright and for damages
Date of the commencement :10.11.2016
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 26.06.2025
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
09 00 19
Digitally signed by
JITHENDRANATH
JITHENDRANATH CS
CS
Date: 2025.07.01
17:15:59 +0530
(JITHENDRANATH C.S.)
LXXXVI Addl. City Civil Judge
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff companies have filed this suit against defendants seeking the following reliefs:- 4 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
i) A Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on their behalf, from directly or indirectly reproducing/storing/installing and/or using pirated/unlicensed software's of the Plaintiffs including various versions of "TEKLA STRUCTURE" thereby Infringing Copyright in the Plaintiffs' computer programs/software titles,
ii) A Decree directing the defendants to deliver up to the Plaintiffs, of all the counterfeit/pirated/unlicensed copies of the Plaintiffs software programs, and/or the duplicating equipment used in the copying/reproducing the software programs of the Plaintiffs,
iii) A Decree directing the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants by reason of infringement of the Plaintiff No.1's copyright and upon such enquiry to pay all such profits earned by the defendants as may be found to be due and payable to the plaintiffs, on such account being taken, 5 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016
iv) A Decree directing the defendants, jointly and severally to pay the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as and by way of damages for infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright,
v) A Decree of costs in the present proceedings be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, and
vi) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
The plaintiff's case in a nutshell is as follows:-
2. The plaintiff No.1 is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Espoo, Finland. The plaintiff No.2 is the private limited company registered under Companies Act, is the subsidiary of plaintiff No.1 company, having its registered office in Bengaluru, India. The plaintiff companies are developing and marketing software products.
One such software is Tekla Structures (X-Steel), that enables the creation and management of accurately detailed, highly constructable, 3D structural models, regardless of material or structural complexity. The said Tekla Structures software runs on a network information system designed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff No.1 is the owner of copyright of the 6 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 said software within the meaning of Section 2(ffc) of the Copyright Act, 1957 the said software would also fall within the definition of 'literary work' as defined under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act. The defendant No.1 is the director and authorized signatory of defendant Nos.2 and 4. Defendant No.2 company has its registered office at Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, and its design unit located at Basaveshwar Nagar, Bengaluru. As per website of the defendant No.2 www.glentec-eso.com, the said company offering structural design and detailing services surveying reinforced concrete detailing etc., and utilizing the plaintiffs software. Defendant No.3 is a group of companies of defendant No.2. Defendant No.4 is registered at the design office address of defendant No.2 and also has the same directors/signatories. In the month of April 2016, the plaintiff received information from its market sources that the defendants herein are using considerable number of plaintiffs' software programs including Tekla Structure for their engineering projects and other commercial purposes at its offices in Bengaluru and Mangaluru. In order to determine the license entitlements of the defendants, the plaintiff made some investigation and 7 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 revealed that the defendant No.2 has two licenses of Tekla Steel detailing (X-Steel) version 20 and whereas defendants No.3 and 4 have no licenses. It was further revealed that the said two licenses are not under maintenance as on the date. The plaintiff having felt that its copyrights with respect to Tekla structure software has been infringing by the defendants deputed one Mr.Santhosh Kumar to make investigation and to submit his report. Mr.Santhosh Kumar after gathering information through internet searches and telephonic interviews with the employees of the defendants came to know that the defendant company has about 25 to 30 employees at Bengaluru and Mangaluru offices among them at least 15 employees are using the plaintiffs' Tekla Structure Steel detailing software. On the basis of the report submitted by Mr.Santhosh Kumar the plaintiff filed this suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Having taken cognizance of the matter, this court having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff passed an exparte order dated 09.06.2016 on IA.No.2 and 3. In the said order this court issued a temporary injunction against the defendants from infringing the copyrights of the plaintiff. 8 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016 Through the same order this court appointed Sri.N.Manjunatha and Smt.Annapoorna advocates as court commissioners with the following directions:-
The learned commissioners are directed to conduct local investigation as prayed in IA 2 and to take possession of the infringed objects and other material and to make inventory of the articles which shall be produced before the court along with the commissioners report. The learned commissioners shall seal the seized articles and the heavy articles like CPUs shall be handed over to the custody of defendants with an undertaking not to tamper the seal without the permission of the court. The defendants shall co-operate with the learned commissioners in smooth execution of commission work by extending all assistance by providing passwords if any. The learned commissioners are at liberty to take technical assistance from the experts of the plaintiff who shall give only outside support of technical assistance in execution of commission warrant.
4. On 17.06.2016, Smt.Annapoorna, the court commissioner submitted her report. In the meantime, suit summons were also served upon the defendants. Having paid their appearance through their advocate, the defendants have filed a written statement traversing the plaint averments. They have admitted that the defendant No.2 has purchased a 9 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 software program on 23.01.2015 vide invoice No.901775 - 2 PCs of standard seed Tekla structural steel detailing license by paying Rs.18,61,728/- and the standard seed maintenance of Tekla structural seed detailing annual maintenance up to 31.12.2015. According to them the said licenses were in the nature of permanent license. They have denied the allegations of the plaintiff that they have infringed the copyrights of the plaintiffs. They have denied that they have caused monetary loss or damage to the plaintiff. They prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this court has framed the issues, additional issues and also recasted the issues; among them the following are still surviving for consideration.
ISSUES Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the registered
1. copy right owner of "TELKA STRUCTURES"? Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendants have
2. infringed the plaintiff's copy right "TELKA STRUCTURES" as alleged?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for
3. the decree of permanent and Mandatory injunctions as prayed?
10 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the decree of damages as sought for?
5 What order or decree?
6. In order to prove their case the plaintiff companies examined one Mr.Vihal Ahuja as PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.7, P.4(a) and P.5(a) documents. On behalf of the defendant Mr.Shekar.C. Morabad examined as DW.1 and marked Ex.D.1 to D.4 documents.
7. The court has heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant and also perused their written submissions.
8. It is pertinent to note here that, the plaintiffs in the Original Suit had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A r/w Section 151 of CPC., seeking legal action against the defendants for their willful disobedience of the temporary injunction order passed by this court. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing a detailed objections. Since it was a supplementary proceedings this court ordered to register a separate miscellaneous case and accordingly Com.Misc.No.90/2024 came to be registered. 11 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
9. The parties have led their common evidence for the issues involved in the present suit and also the issue involved in Com.Misc.No.90/2024. Learned counsel for the respective parties have also addressed their common arguments both on the merits of the suit and also on the miscellaneous application. In the supplemental proceedings bearing Com.Misc.No.90/2024, the following point arise for the court's consideration:-
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have willfully disobeyed the order of injunction passed by this court?
10. Having heard both sides the court answers the above issues and point for consideration as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative, Issue No.2 : In the negative, Issue No.3 : In the negative, Issue No.4 : In the negative, Issue No.5 : As per final order, Point raised in the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition: In the negative for the following:
REASONS Evidences before the court:-
11. In his evidence affidavit PW.1, Sri.Vihal Ajuja, the Power of attorney holder of the plaintiff company reiterated 12 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 the plaint averments. Ex.P.1 is the notarized copy of Power of Attorney dated 17.03.2016, Ex.P.2 is the notarized copy of Power of Attorney executed on 17.03.2016, Ex.P.3 is the notarized copy of trade register extract with regard to change of name, Ex.P.4 and P.4(a) are the notarized copy of certificate of copyright ownership issued by the Managing Director of plaintiff company, Ex.P.5 and P.5(a) are the notarized copies of standard license agreement sample copy, Ex.P.6 is the notarized copy of software agreement entered with the defendant, Ex.P.7 is the affidavit of the private investigator.
12. The defendant No.1 Sri.Shekahar C.Morabad, who examined himself as DW.1 in his evidence affidavit deposed on par with the written statement averments. Ex.D.1 is the online printout customer order and software license, Ex.D.2 is the online printout of Entitlement Certificate of plaintiff, Ex.D.3 is the online printout of Invoice of the plaintiff, Ex.D.4 is the certificate u/Sec.65B of Evidence Act. Arguments:
13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that when the court commissioner Smt.Annapoorna visited the spot the 13 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 defendants caused obstructions to the court commissioner and prevented her from collecting the evidence. When the team members accompanied the court commissioner spotted the first unauthorised version of plaintiffs' software the defendants became hostile and forced the local commissioner and the team to stop executing the commission warrant. Mr.Sanjeev Nayak, however, opened the premises where the commissioner inspected one system wherein Tekla software was not found. Learned counsel submitted that in the cases like present nature the proof of infringement of copyright cannot be expected with the higher degree of proof, the fact that the defendants obstructed the commissioner to carry out the assignment given by the court is suffice to indicate that the defendants were using the pirated versions of Tekla software. Learned counsel has relied upon seven decisions in her written arguments but furnished the following decisions to the perusal of the court:
1. Autodesk Inc.and Ors Vs. A.V.T. shankardass and Ors.
Referred in FAO (OS) 116/2008.
2. Microsoft Corporation and Ors Vs. Satveer Gaur and Anr. referred in CS(COMM) 1324/2016.
14 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
3. Autodesk Vs. Arup Das and Ors referred in CCP No.49/2011.
4. The Foundry Vision Mongers Ltd and Anr Vs. Raj Shekar referred in CS (COMM) 415/2018.
14. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that at the time of filing of the suit the plaintiffs could not able to produce any incriminating material before the court to substantiate that the defendants have violated the copyrights of the plaintiff. Even after this court appointed a court commissioner to collect any clinching material from the place of the defendant, the court commissioner has not collected any incriminating martial to prove the violation of copyrights. In the absence of any evidence, much less any semblance of evidence it cannot be inferred that the defendants have violated the copyrights of the plaintiff. Re.Issues No.1 to 4 and Point framed in Com.Misc No.90/2024:-
15. The defendants have not seriously disputed that the plaintiffs are the owners of a registered copy right Tekla structures. To prove their ownership the plaintiffs have also produced the certificate of copyright marked as Ex.P.4 and 15 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 P.4a. The plaintiff satisfactorily proved that the plaintiffs are the registered owners of copy right and the registration No.TX7-552-314 dated 10.05.2012. Since software is an electronic document, the same shall be proved by producing a copy of software in the electronic form but the plaintiff has not produced the software in the electronic form to the perusal of the court. The plaintiffs having felt that the defendants are using the software of the plaintiff un- authorisedly and without there being any license issued by the plaintiff, have allegedly appoint one Mr.Santhosh Kumar to investigate the same. The said Santhosh Kumar has submitted his affidavit marked as Ex.P.7. In his affidavit, he interalia stated that he conducted an internet search on the World Wide Web to know about the defendant company and its area of business, contact details etc. In the website of the defendant i.e., www.gleltec-eso.com, Mr.Santhosh Kumar discovered that the defendant No.3 is the associate of defendant No.2. In the website of defendant No.3 i.e., www.mayrain_energy.com, he noticed the defendant No.4 is also associated with defendant Nos.2 and 3. Having gone through the contents of website www.naukri.com, Santhosh 16 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 Kumar got the contact numbers of the employees of the defendants company. He contacted one Mr.Jagadish.M, the employee of the defendant through him he got an information that about 20-25 designers and detailers are working in the companies of defendants. The said Mr.Jagdeesh.M disclosed Mr.Santhosh Kumar that the defendants companies are using Tekla (X-steel) software for the day to day job assignments. Mr.Santhosh Kumar, on 04.05.2016 contacted another employee of the defendants Mr.Karthik M.V. over a phone through him he got the same information which he got from Mr.Jagadeesh.M. Thus, it is clear that the private investigator Mr.Santhosh Kumar has collected some information about the company of the defendants and it was also revealed that the defendants companies are using Tekla (X-steel) software. It is to be noted that the private investigator has collected some information with respect to the defendants companies, but he has not collected any vital evidence much less any evidence to prove that the defendant companies are infringing the copy rights of the plaintiff. Further, it is also important to note that Mr.Santhosh Kumar has not been examined in the court. Therefore, his un- 17 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 testified affidavit marked as Ex.P.7 cannot be used as an evidence against the defendants. Thus, it is clear that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs had no kind of evidence as against the defendants to prove that the defendants are infringing the copy right of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff companies requested this court to appoint commissioners to conduct search in the premises of the defendant and to collect the evidence. Smt.Annapoorna, the court commissioner has filed her report on 17.06.2016 interalia stating that on 10.06.2016 around 4.45 P.M. she visited the office of defendant No.1 and tried to inspect the computer systems and laptops of the defendant No.1. She stated that the computers and laptops were password protected and the employees of defendant No.1 did not provide password. She has also stated that the defendant No.1 did not allow her to inspect the computers and laptops. She had noticed 27 monitors, 21 CPUs, 2 laptops, 3 photocopy machines, 3 printers etc. This court in its order dated 09.06.2016 specifically directed the court commissioner to take possession of the infringed objects and other materials by making inventory and shall produce those 18 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 articles before the court along with the report. The commissioner, however, has not ceased the computers and thus it is clear that absolutely there is no acceptable evidence before the court to prove that the defendants were really using Tekla(X-steel) software in their computers. Even in the absence of the defendants evidence the present suit was liable to be dismissed. PW.1 Mr.Vihal Ahuja was an advocate by profession, he was associated with the advocates appearing for plaintiff. He further stated that he was not an advocate when the suit was filed. In the cross-examination he stated that as per terms of agreement [Ex.P.5 (6)] a notice shall be issued before conducting of the audit. He expressed his ignorance with respect to whether such a notice was issued or not. He however, admitted that the defendant No.2 has purchased 2 licenses of the Tekla (X-steel) software. He has also admitted that as per clause 5A of Ex.P.5, the license was perpetual in nature. In his cross-examination he specifically admitted that he was not present in the spot when the court commissioner visited defendants premises. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of PW.1 is not helpful to the 19 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 plaintiff to prove that the defendant have really infringed the copy rights of the plaintiff.
16. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.2 has purchased 2 licenses from the plaintiffs with respect to the software in question. It is not the case of plaintiff that even after expiry of license period the defendants were using the license. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that though the defendants have obtained 2 licenses, they were using the same software in 15 to 20 computers. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the defendants were really using the said software in more than 2 computers. As per clause 6.1 of the license agreement at any time during the license, the licensor may conduct or appoint the external auditor in order to ensure the compliance by the customer with the terms of the license. Before conducting such audit a notice in advance shall be issued as per clause 6.3 of the license. The purpose of audit is to detect and notify the plaintiff company with respect to use of un-licenced or otherwise infringed copies of the software. If such audit was conducted it could have been easier to the plaintiff companies to prove the infringement of copy right. The plaintiff company has not 20 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 taken any such steps to conduct audit. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the defendants were really used more than 2 soft wares in their computers. Since the plaintiffs have not proved the infringement of their copyrights over the software in question, the question of violation of injunction order does not arise.
17. In the case of Autodesk Ink and Others Vs. A.V.T. Shankardas (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court issued a broad guidelines with respect to appointment of a local commissioner in software infringement and privacy matters. In the said case the defendant of the said case had produced some softwares before the local commissioner without invoices. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that using computer software without valid invoice is a clear case of violation of copyrights. In the case of The Foundry Vision Mongers Ltd & Anr (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court based on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff came to the conclusion the defendant No.2 is using 11 fusion softwares without any license.
21 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016
18. In the present case absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the defendants were using more than 2 Tekla softwares of plaintiff companies and therefore, the decisions cited above may not be helpful to the plaintiff.
19. In the case of Microsoft Corporation and Others (supra) the investigator Mr.Anil Malhotra discovered about 160 computers installed with pirated softwares. Among them the local commissioner had sealed 51 computers containing the infringing software. In the present case the plaintiff has not examined its investigator. The court commissioner also not seized any hardware of the defendants containing the infringed software of the plaintiff.
20. In the case of Autodesk Vs. Arupdas and Ors. (supra), the defendant did not allow the local commissioner to inspect the spot and therefore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the defendant has committed the contempt of court as per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
21. Violation of injunction order as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC is different from committing civil content in terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of 22 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 Courts Act. In the temporary injunction order this court had restrained the defendants from infringing the copyrights of plaintiffs over the Tekla software. As held earlier, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the defendants were really using more than two Tekla softwares in their computers. Therefore, it is not possible to hod that the defendants have violated the injunction order passed by this court. Issue No.5 :-
22. In view of the findings on aforesaid issues, the court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
The application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A r/w. Section 151 of CPC in Com.Misc No.90/2024 is hereby rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep a certified copy of this judgment in Com.Misc.No.90/2024.
[Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 26th day of June, 2025] Digitally signed by JITHENDRANATH JITHENDRANATH C S CS Date: 2025.07.01 17:16:24 +0530 (JITHENDRANATH C.S.) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru.
23 Com.OS.No.1670/2024
Old No.4098/2016 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW-1 Sri.Vishal Ahuja List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Notarized copy of Power of Attorney dated 17.03.2016 Ex.P.2 Notarized copy of Power of Attorney executed dated 17.03.2016 Ex.P.3 Notarized copy of trade register extract with regard to change of name Ex.P.4 Notarized copy of certificate of copyright ownership (Marked subject to objection) Ex.P.4(a) CC of certificate of copyright ownership Ex.P.5 Notarized copy of standard license agreement sample copy (Marked subject to objection) Ex.P.5(a) CC of standard terms and conditions of license Ex.P.6 Notarized copy of software agreement of defendant (Marked subject to objection) Ex.P.7 Affidavit of the Private investigator List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant:
DW.1 Sri.Shekhar C.Morabad List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant:
Ex.D.1 Online printout customer order and software license 24 Com.OS.No.1670/2024 Old No.4098/2016 Ex.D.2 Online printout of Entitlement certificate of plaintiff Ex.D.3 Online printout of Invoice of the plaintiff Ex.D.4 Certificate u/Sec.65B of Evidence Act.Digitally signed by JITHENDRANATH
JITHENDRANATH CS CS Date: 2025.07.01 17:16:34 +0530 (JITHENDRANATH C.S.) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru.