Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.The summons issued under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code which are in the course of investigation and the purpose of filing of the writ petitions is to scuttle the investigation process. It is further stated that even otherwise the remedy of the petitioners is only before the Criminal Court and cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the petitioners cannot challenge the First Information Report when the investigation is still pending. It is stated that the petitioners having agreed to co-operate with the enquiry have stealthily filed the present writ petitions and obtained interim orders and the interim orders affect the investigation against the purported criminal offenders. Inasmuch as the writ petitions have been filed before this Court in respect of criminal proceedings initiated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petitions are to be dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction and maintainability. It is stated that First Information Report is only a piece of information on the basis of which, investigation is set in motion as per Sections 154 to 156 Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, it cannot be quashed as the complainant has made out a prima facie case since a serious and cognizable offence has been made out. The summons issued under Section 160 read with Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code are only normal process of investigation. The petitioners remedy is only under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, if they are aggrieved. It is stated that the first respondent Government of Tamil Nadu is not a necessary party and added only for the purpose of subverting the question of jurisdiction. The complaint given by the fifth respondent before the Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai Police was to the effect that the fifth respondent being the Director of Kensoft Infotech Limited having address at D-4247, 8, Oberoi Garden Estate, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-72 and one of the softwares of Kensoft, is Kensoft Housing Finance Software "KEN-HFS" and registered with the Registrar, Copyrights Government of India and the said software said to have been developed by the fifth respondent company since 1992 in Mumbai and from 1994 onwards, the same was given for licensed usage to various companies across the country and all Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and source code of the software are in Mumbai. The current version 8.x of the said KEN-HFS software was released for licensed use to the first petitioner company and various agreements, including annual maintenance agreements between the fifth respondent and the first petitioner company were signed in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and all agreements clearly mentioned that the copy right, IPR belonging to the complainant, namely the fifth respondent and the software is to be used exclusively by the petitioners should not be given to any third party and no reverse engineering or alteration should be made to the software by the petitioners. It is stated that as per the complaint of the fifth respondent the petitioners wrote a communication admitting that the KEN-HFS software is in their licensed usage. It is stated that in the fifth respondent's complaint before the third respondent, it is complained that the petitioners on many occasions given assurance to the fifth respondent that IPR and copy right of the complainant will not be violated by the petitioners and third party access was prohibited by the contract. In spite of the said contract, it is stated that the petitioners have handed over software to the third party and having full knowledge of this fact, the petitioners have entered into agreements with the complainant that the software would not be handed over to any third party and therefore, tampering of code and hacking of the software were committed. It is stated that the technical reports from Indian Institute of Technology, IIT, Bombay has established the violation as per its report. It is stated that the petitioners have paid large amount of money to the third party namely, Sundaram Infotech Solutions. The allegations in the First Information Report are against Ms.V.Janaki, Head of Systems, Sundaram B.N.P Home Finance Limited (2)Mr.N.Palany, M.D., Sundaram B.N.P Home Finance Limited (3) Mr.G.Sundararajan, Vice President, Sundaram B.N.P Home Finance Limited, (4)Mr.Sacharya, Director, Sundaram B.N.P Home Finance Limited and (5) Mr.K.Swaminathan and others.

11.A bare reading of the contents of the First Information Report shows that the third respondent police is the competent authority especially when Sections 78, 80 and 81 make it very clear that the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 will override the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. While reiterating that the Kensoft Infotech Limited is a software development company and that has developed finance software for use of housing companies and home loans business, the fifth respondent company states that it is an ISO 9001:2000 certified company with certification from BVQI and ANAB (ANSI-ASQ) National Accreditation Board of USA. The company has also been an Oracle partner for over 13 years and one of their major software that they developed is KEN-HFS and that was licensed in India to various companies since 1994, including the Bank of India, GIC Housing Finance, ICICI Bank etc., and also to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Economic Development Corporation Goa etc. In addition to that various software have also been used by the Reliance Petro Chemicals, Air India, Afro Asian Games, Government of Andhra Pradesh etc., It is stated that the petitioners have violated by tampering with the software, schema, source code of the fifth respondent resulting in tremendous loss to the fifth respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners have themselves assured the fifth respondent that the IPR will be protected by them. However, after admitting the same in November 2008 and in December 2008 after perpetuating the fraud the petitioners have falsely claimed copyright of the software and after violations were discovered the infringing code found on petitioners' server to cover up their illegal activities. It is stated that there is no disruption in the software and letters written by the second and fourth petitioners on behalf of the company would clearly indicate that they have satisfied with the work of the fifth respondent. It is also stated that they exposed to and colluded with the third parties who control hacking and tampering, copying and offences were committed and reverse engineered the software provided by the fifth respondent company and hacked the software schema source code committing violations of the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. While it is true that the fifth respondent has filed a suit in C.S.No.270 of 2009 before the High Court of Madras, seeking various reliefs against the petitioners and the third party are not party to the arbitration and in spite of it an application was made for the purpose of referring to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act and that has been rejected in the appeal in O.S.A.Nos.431 to 433 of 2009. It is true that against the order in the abovesaid appeals, S.L.P has been filed by the petitioners and no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also stated that the petitioners have violated the Copyright of the fifth respondent and the illegal acts done by the petitioners have been established in the technical report of the Indian Institute of Technology, Computer Science and Engineering Department, IIT, Bombay, apart from the report of Dr.N.L.Sarda, who is an independent and eminent expert of international repute and other reports of experts.

32.The defendants reverse engineered the plaintiff's software KEN-HFS and hacked the source code of the same. The defendants has altered/modified/inserted various external source codes into the plaintiff's original software and are involved in manufacture of tampered software by reverse engineering of plaintiff software thereby violating the terms and conditions on the agreement. The defendants developed a tampered software by lifting substantial portion of source code from plaintiff's original software and exploited it commercially. The plaintiff states that this unauthorised commercial exploitation of source code would amount to the copyright violation. The adaptation and modification of the source code as well as KEN_HFS software, ORACLE AFSU software by the plaintiff amounts to infringement of copyright, the exclusive rights vested in the plaintiff in the software developed and maintained by them".

64.Regarding the hacking of software, the fifth respondent has stated in the plaint as follows:

"35.The plaintiff states that the defendants with their knowledge has illegally and without authorization inserted various source codes to plaintiff software with a mala fide intent to prevent the plaintiff access and to tamper the evidence of their activities. The Log file also clearly reveals the insertion of external source code and reverse engineering committed by the defendants. Hacking, alteration of the software and unauthorized access is a trespass into the exclusive intellectual property rights vested in the plaintiff. The defendants have deliberately made unauthorized adaptation, alteration and misuse of the source code and software developed by the plaintiff which amounts to infringement of copyright. The defendants are also liable for the acts of torts and misfeasance committed by them deliberately and with dishonest intentions and motives".