Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pirated software in Crossways Vertical Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Cloudatix Networks Pvt Ltd And Ors on 2 November, 2023Matching Fragments
- 10 -
supplying of items are incomplete and until VFL is supplied M/s Raitel will not provide the acceptance and that delaying the material delivery is not serving any purpose and that process of material verification and acceptance will only start once all the material is delivered.
16. Defendant further contended that the Plaintiff vide its email dated 22.06.2017 informed that the delivery of VFL is completed that caused delay of over 9 weeks against the PO. Further, during the process of acceptance M/s Railtel found that two splicing machines supplied were with pirated software with error "time of expired demonstration"
indicating that these were demo machines and that the Defendant informed the issue to the Plaintiff through email dated 26.06.2017.
17. Further, the Plaintiff through its mail dated 29.06.2017 informed that its an issue of updation of new software. However, the Defendant informed through email dated 29.06.2017 that since the machines are in the acceptance phase thus the machines cannot be taken out of M/s Railtel.
18. Defendant also submitted that the Plaintiff had given pirated software of the machines which was not supporting the system and which was not according to OEM. Raitel objected against the same and because of the said defects, work could not be completed. Subsequently, the Defendant issued the notice of default to Plaintiff M/s Crossways Vertical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Cloudatix Networks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CS (Comm.) 1359/2021
- 11 -
through various communications and emails but the Plaintiff did not comply and violated the terms of the Purchase Order. The Defendant further received the rejected machines by M/s Raitel due to the pirated software who asked the Defendant to replace with the new machines. This was intimated to the Plaintiff through email dated 13.07.2017 to replace the machines rejected by the customer. Plaintiff was given 15 day's notice to replace the machines, however, the Plaintiff did not act upon it. The Defendant pointed out to the Plaintiff that the Purchase Order contains specific clause that in case of any defect in the machine, the machine shall be replaced by the new one.