Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs appearing on advance notice contended that the appellants/defendants having obstructed in the execution of the commission issued by this Court, are not entitled to be heard at all. It was further contended that the purpose of issuance of the commission would not be served by making the mirror images as suggested by the appellants/defendants as the appellants/defendants could subsequently always challenge the same. It was yet further argued that the appellants/defendants having been found to be in use of unlicensed/pirated software of the respondents/plaintiffs, ought to be directed to deposit some amount in the Court. Reliance in this regard was placed on the order dated 11th January, 2012 of the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) No.23/2012 titled Econix Hi-Tech Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., where on the basis of the report of the Commissioner of a large number of pirated/unlicensed software being found in the computer systems of the defendant, the computer systems of the defendants were permitted to be de-sealed subject to deposit by the defendants a sum of Rs.22 lakhs in the Court.

9. We may mention that the Division Bench of this Court in Autodesk Inc. Vs. A.V.T. Shankardass AIR 2008 Delhi 167, in view of the earlier divergent view of the Single Benches of this Court on the request for appointment of Court Commissioners in cases of infringement of copyright in a computer software and of piracy, laid down the guidelines for exercise of discretion in such matters as under:

"(i) The object of appointment of a Local Commissioner in software piracy matters is not, as much to collect evidence but to preserve and protect the infringing evidence. The pirated software or incriminating evidence can only be obtained from the premises of the opposite party alone and in the absence of an ex parte appointment of a Local Commissioner there is likelihood that such evidence may be lost, removed or destroyed;
(ii) Request for ex parte appointment of a Local Commissioner in such matters is usual and in fact is intended to sub serve the ends of justice as it is imperative to have an element of surprise so that the actual position is not altered;
(iii) The test of reasonable and credible information regarding the existence of pirated software or incriminating evidence should not be subjected to strict proof or the requirement to demonstrate or produce part of the pirated software/incriminating evidence at the initial stage itself. It has to be tested on the touchstone of pragmatism and the natural and normal course of conduct and practice in trade;
(v) In cases where certain and definite information with regard to the existence of pirated software or incriminating evidence is not available or where the Court may nurture some element of doubt, it may consider asking the plaintiff to deposit cost in Court so that in case pirated software or incriminating evidence is not found then the defendant can be suitably compensated for the obtrusion in his work or privacy."

It was however also clarified that the aforesaid guidelines are not exhaustive and are only illustrative. The argument of the counsel for the defendant in that case also, of there being no need of seizure of the computer system and CPUs which may be found or suspected to be involved in use of infringing software and of only ghost copies of the same including the software being directed to be made for the purpose of use as evidence in Court was also noted along with the opposition of the counsel for the plaintiff therein of the same being not feasible and being fraught with possibility of manipulation therein and objection being raised to the admissibility in evidence thereof but were left open for decision in appropriate case. We are today in the present case faced with that question.