Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit restraining groundless threat of infringement proceedings, declaration of non-infringement of copyright, restraining tortious interference and restraining defamatory damages, etc. under Section 60 of the Copyright Act.

2. While issuing summons in the suit, on 26.05.2015 this Court had passed the following order:

Issue notice to the defendants by ordinary process and speed post, returnable on the date fixed above.

4. Today learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that in addition to prayer under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, additional prayers have also been made and thus, the present suit would be maintainable. The plaintiffs have sought following prayers:

"a. An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their subsidiaries, directors, wholesalers, distributors, partners and/or other proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents by circulars, advertisements or by communications, oral or in writing addressed to the plaintiffs or any other person, or by any other means from making groundless threats of action for copyright infringement; b. An order of declaration that the plaintiffs‟ program SourcApp does not infringe the copyright of the defendants; c. An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their subsidiaries, directors, wholesalers, distributors, partners and/or other proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents by circulars, advertisements or by communications, oral or in writing addressed to the plaintiffs or any other person, or by any other means leading to tortious interference in plaintiffs‟ business;

e. An order directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the plaintiff; and f. An order awarding to the plaintiff the costs of this suit."

5. At this stage, it was put to Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants as to whether the defendants are willing to make a statement in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to prayers „c‟ and „d‟. In turn, Mr. Sindhwani has submitted that the plaintiffs should give up its relief in prayer „e‟ with respect to damages. The Law Officer of the defendants company is present in Court. She has obtained instructions from the Director of the defendants company. She states that the defendants have not and will not cause any tortious interference in the plaintiffs business by publishing any circulars, advertisements, communications or any defamatory statement. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, in turn, gives up the prayer „e‟ of the present plaint.