Delhi High Court
Autodesk, Inc. & Ors. vs Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. on 18 March, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: January 22, 2009
Date of Order: March 18, 2009
+ IA Nos. 14454 & 14455 of 2007 in CS(OS) 2375/2007
% 18.03.2009
Autodesk, Inc & ors. ...Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Ankush Mahajan
Versus
Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. ...Defendants
Through: Mr. Mohd. Tariq Mustafa, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
IA Nos. 14454/2007 & 14455/2007
1. The above two applications have been made on behalf of applicants/defendants No. 2 and 3 under Section 151 CPC wherein it is stated that the Local Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction in executing the commission and instead of handing back the computers, CPUs and other material on superdari to applicant in terms of order of the court, the Local Commissioner has locked 18 out of a total of 19 computers in a separate room, thus paralyzing the business of the CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 1 Of 4 defendants and bringing it to a complete standstill. A prayer is made for allowing the defendants to use the computers, CPUs etc.
2. This Court had appointed the Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC on 4th December 2007 in following terms:
"The Local Commissioners shall also make an inventory of the unauthorized/ pirated software of the plaintiffs being used by the defendants. The Local Commissioners shall take into custody the Central Processing Units, compact/ floppy disks containing the unauthorized /pirated versions of the plaintiffs software inter alia including Windows XP, Microsoft Office, AutoCAD, AutoCAD Inventor, Autodesk 3DS Max, Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Autodesk, Revit, Map Info, Unigraphics (now known as NX), Solid Edge & Pro Engineer & their various versions which would be identified by the technical experts/ representatives of the plaintiffs to accompany the Local Commissioner. On taking custody of the same and making an inventory of the software, the Local Commissioners shall release the same on superdari to the defendants.
In case of computers being protected by password, the defendants to disclose the password to enable the Local Commissioner and representatives of the plaintiffs to access the computers.
3. The report of the Local Commissioner shows that the Local Commissioner had put the business machines i.e. computers, CPUs etc CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 2 Of 4 in a room and sealed the same and thereafter told the defendants/applicants to keep the seal intact. He did not release these articles on superdari to the defendants. It is apparent that the Local Commissioner exceeded commission given to him. The Local Commissioner was not supposed to lock the goods i.e. computers, CPUs etc and seal the same in a room, as has been done in this case. The Local Commissioner was only to prepare the inventory and give the goods back to the defendant on Superdari.
4. Counsel for the plaintiffs opposes the application of the defendants of allowing the defendants to use its computers etc. on the ground that the Local Commissioner has found that the defendant was using pirated software of the plaintiff and in case the defendants are allowed to use the machines having pirated software version, the defendants would be perpetuating the illegality. In my view, this proposition of the plaintiff is unfounded. This Court has already issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the unauthorized and pirated software titles of the plaintiff company including Windows XP, Microsoft Office, AutoCAD, AutoCAD Inventor, Autodesk 3DS Max, Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Autodesk, Revit, Map Info, Unigraphics (now known as NX), Solid Edge & Pro Engineer & their various versions. In case defendants violate the injunction, the plaintiff will have remedy available to it under law. This Court cannot allow the Local Commissioner to seal or take away the properties of the defendants while protecting the rights of the plaintiffs. CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 3 Of 4
5. In the result, both the above applications are allowed. The defendants are at liberty to open the seal of the room in which the computers etc. are kept. However, the defendants shall be bound by the injunction granted by this Court and shall allow inspection of their rooms/premises from time to time by the plaintiffs or their representatives, in order to see if the pirated software were still being used or not by the defendants.
6. With above order, both the applications stand disposed of. CS(OS) 2375/2007 List on 30th March 2009.
March 18, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd
CS (OS) 2375/2007 Autodesk Inc. & ors v. Mr. Kumar Sam Prahlad & Ors. Page 4 Of 4