Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.4. The fifth defendant was employed by the plaintiff for coordinating with the defendants 1 to 4 and he was also taken to Bihar by the defendants. The plaintiff arranged for the fifth defendant's travel and also paid the remuneration to him for his stay at Bihar. The other defendants requested the plaintiff to spare the fifth defendant for 15 days, whereas, the fifth defendant acting in http://www.judis.nic.in collusion with the other defendants, extended the period of his stay at Bihar . However, the defendants have not made any claim for payment towards the remuneration or travel expenses of the fifth defendant for his stay in Bihar. The fifth defendant as an employee of the plaintiff Company was entrusted with the source code of the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 and also the security key to enable him to deal with the software more effectively.

1.5. The Director of the plaintiff Company, Prof. Dr.D.Victor received a letter dated 25.02.2006 from the second defendant herein and the said letter contained various allegations against the plaintiff (which are ill-founded and baseless), for which, the plaintiff sent a reply dated 28.02.2006 clarifying their stand and stated that in spite of their patience and support, the defendants have not been able to make any sale of the software. While so, in the month of July 2006, the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant has flouted a new private limited company, viz., the fourth defendant herein to solicit orders for marketing and distribution of software U CAMPUS XL 1.0. The fourth defendant has also entered into an agreement with Karnataka State Electronics Development http://www.judis.nic.in Corporation Limited (KEONICS) for marketing the U CAMPUS XL 1.0 software. Further, the third defendant is a director of the fourth defendant Company which has entered into an agreement with KEONICS and started soliciting orders for the marketing of software U CAMPUS XL 1.0. The second defendant has supplied the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 to the University of Madras and Anna University, Chennai. The understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 is that when the software is installed in any educational institution and the due amounts are paid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would release the key which would make the software functional and work regularly. The defendants failed to make any payments and not even they have disclosed the final price at which software was sold to the University of Madras and Anna University, Chennai. The defendants have not only failed to achieve the sales targets but also misrepresented that they are the owners of the software, U CAMPUS XL 1.0. The defendants in order to achieve their illegal object, flouted the fourth defendant company and by entering into an agreement with KEONICS has defrauded the plaintiff of its lawful profits and also more importantly, set up a claim against the plaintiff's intellectual property right in the http://www.judis.nic.in registered copyright. The fifth defendant who has the security key and the source code of the plaintiff's software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 has clandestinely taken away the same and is now in the rolls of the defendants, committing acts of copyright piracy.

1.8. The fifth defendant is an employee of the plaintiff Company and he was entrusted with the source code and the security key which has been taken away by him. Since the defendants are setting up a claim against the plaintiff with regard to the said software U CAMPUS XL 1.0, the fifth defendant is no longer entitled to retain the source code and the security key. The fifth defendant is working for a rival company against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to receive the source code and security key from the fifth defendant. The defendants 1 to 4 having violated the http://www.judis.nic.in agreement in its entirety both the non-completion of requisite targets as also by setting up a right over the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 can no longer hold themselves out as representatives, agents, marketers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the defendants shall not do the same.

1.9. The cause of action arose at Chennai, when the plaintiff created the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 was applied for copyright registration in the year 2003; when the said software was registered under No.SW-1727/2005 on 15.03.2005; when the plaintiff entered into two agreements with the defendants 1 to 3 on 15.06.2004; when the plaintiff handed over 34 sets of compact discs and instruction manuals to the defendants; when the defendants failed to achieve their sales targets as per the terms of the agreement; on 25.02.2006, when the second defendant sent a Letter to the Director of the plaintiff Company making false allegations and on 28.02.2006, when the Director of the plaintiff Company clarified their stand by a Letter; in July 2006, when the plaintiff became aware that the second defendant has set up the fourth defendant Company and has entered into an agreement with KEONICS http://www.judis.nic.in claiming that the fourth defendant is the proprietor of the software U CAMPUS XL 1.O; when the plaintiff became aware that the defendant has installed 2 units of the software to University of Madras and Anna University, Chennai for Rs.81,000/- each; when due to the defendant's inaction and failure to achieve sales targets as per the terms of the agreement has caused a loss to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.99,62,000/-; when the fifth defendant is retained the source code and security key of the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0; when the defendants continue to hold out themselves as representatives or set up a claim for the copyright in the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0. Further, the cause of action continues to arise each and every day when the defendant solicits, markets, installs or deals with the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 in any customer's place and thereby infringe the plaintiff's registered copyright in the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 under No.SW-1727/2005 and until restrained by this Court by an order of injunction. Hence, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs stated supra.