Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These two original applications were filed by the applicant, who is also plaintiff in the main suit in C.S.No.270 of 2009.

2.O.A.No.275 of 2009 is filed seeking for an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from directly or indirectly in any manner copying, reproducing, reverse engineering, adapting, using, altering, tampering with or hacking into the original source code in part or full of the applicant's housing finance software KEN_HFS thereby amounting to infringement of copyright in the applicant's housing finance software KEN_HFS or in any other manner whatsoever.

4.The applicant filed a suit in C.S.No.270 of 2009 for a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly in any manner copying, reproducing, reverse engineering, adapting, using, altering, tampering with or hacking into the original source code in part or full of the plaintiff's housing finance software KEN_HFS thereby amounting to infringement of copyright in the plaintiff's housing finance software KEN_HFS or in any other manner whatsoever and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disclosing, divulging or in any manner dealing with the plaintiff's confidential information, technical know-how and trade secrets provided by the plaintiff to the defendants with regard to KEN_HFS housing finance software or disclosing the same by giving access or make available to any other person, third parties including the second defendant in any form or material and dealing in the software made on that basis without the plaintiff's consent, permission, license or authorization and from exploiting the unique features of the plaintiff's KEN_HFS software or doing any other thing including copying, selling, offering for sale or distributing the infringing version of the plaintiff's software or in any manner whatsoever and also for a direction to defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,05,000/- as damages for the illegal activities committed by the defendants, etc.

8.The applicant/plaintiff in support of the two original applications has filed a common affidavit. It was stated that the plaintiff is a Software company engaged in development of application software for multinational corporations, financial institutions and the Government since 1992. It is certified under ISO 9001:2000. It is also a partner of ORACLE Corp, the global software giant, for over a decade. The applicant has many clientele including leading banks and financial institutions. The applicant's flagship product is an enterprise level housing financial software named as KEN-HFS and it is a housing finance software used by companies engaged in business of housing finance/home loans. It was originally developed by the applicant/plaintiff in the year 1992/94 on a dBase/clipper platform for the use at Bank of India. The said software has been in existence for more than 14 years. This software has also been licensed to the Bank of India in the year 1994 and GIC Housing Finance in the year 1996. It has been continuously upgraded in tune of technological developments. The said software is supplied in an executable format with no source code rights and with no rights to sell or alter or give to any third party. Some customarization on its software will be done by Kensoft for a customer based on changing business and user requirements. All design/documentation and source code are proprietary to Kensoft and not part of deliverables. Any form of copying/reverse engineering or third party access is prohibited. The copyright and confidential information of the applicant is asserted on the sign of screen of KEN-HFS and is accepted by the user before entering into and using the software.

18.It was further stated that the first respondent had applied for Oracle licence. The agreements referred to by the applicant are only AMCs and did not clothe on the applicant's any ownership right. In the AMC, dated 20.3.2006 entered into between the parties, there was a surreptitious inclusion of the word licence, which was done by the applicant. On notice by the firs respondent, it was immediately removed by the applicant. The allegation that the first respondent gave complete access of the software to the second respondent on servers controlled by the second respondent is also denied. The second respondent has no connection whatsoever to the software or with the date base administration. Such an allegation is made only to rope in the second respondent as a party to the suit so as to avoid the issue being settled through arbitration as agreed to by them. With reference to the expert report given by the applicant, it was a unilateral report and was not done in technical manner. It was further asserted that the first respondent need not require to do any reverse engineering to be aware of the table structures. There was no tampering with any software by extracting the data from the tables in which the data resides. The software itself was developed for the first respondent and the work for hire basis. The sharing of back up and log files, provided by the first respondent to the applicant for the purpose of attending to maintenance related issues with a third party is a clear violation of the confidentiality obligation of the applicant. The first respondent has adopted for quicker and efficient work by taking relevant portion of the test server in relation to the date is deleted and such data from the production sever are copied in its place. The software tables referred to as objects in the report submitted by the expert are listed in the log file and there was no need to do any reverse engineering to obtain this knowledge.