RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Application of the defendants under Section 340 of the Cr.PC for proceeding against Mr. R.K. Manrao & Mr. G.S. Rihal of the plaintiff is for consideration.

2. The plaintiff instituted this suit on the pleas:- a. That it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of agricultural tractors etc.;

b. Tractors manufactured by plaintiff are based on technology and knowhow developed originally be Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI)

under the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CISR); c. In terms of the arrangement between CMERI and the Govt. of India, the patent design, copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the tractor developed by CMERI came to be vested in the National Research & Development Corporation of India (NRDCI); d. That NRDCI granted to Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (PSIDCL) licenses to use the aforesaid technology developed by CMERI including the patent rights which CMERI possesses with respect thereto and a license dated 31st July, 1972 was executed; e. That PSIDCL assigned its rights under the aforesaid license deed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to be authorized to manufacture and sell tractors in accordance with the knowhow technology etc. developed by CMERI and vested with NRDCI; f. That the plaintiff company commenced commercial production of tractors in April, 1974; g. That the plaintiff continued research on the tractor models, affecting the modifications and changes required from time to time for improved performance of the tractors with Mr. G.S. Rihal & Mr. Manrao of the plaintiff being Incharge of the Research & Development Functions since 1991; h. That the plaintiff company has a copyright in the drawings prepared by it of various components of the tractor;

i. That the defendants are also engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tractors; in September, 1996 the plaintiff learnt of the attempts of the defendants to take advantage of the specifications and tools of the tractors developed by the plaintiff by getting approval from Central Firm Machinery Training & Testing Institute (CFMTTI); that the defendants have been copying the drawings and specifications of components, parts, assemblies of the tractors developed and prepared by the plaintiff and manufacturing tractors therefrom; j. That the plaintiff as Annexure A-1 to A-11 to the plaint filed drawings developed by and belonging to the plaintiff in relation to the tractors components; k. That the plaintiff as Annexure B-1 to B-10 to the plaint filed the drawings of the same components used by the defendants and given by the defendants to their vendors for procurement of components and parts; l. It is the case of the plaintiff that a comparison of the two sets aforesaid of the drawings will show the systematic copying by the defendants of the plaintiff’s drawings; m. The plaintiff thus sought the relief, inter-alia of restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright vesting in the drawings of the plaintiff relating to manufacture of tractors and components and parts of the tractors as described in Annexure A-1 to A-11 or otherwise;

3. The defendants contested the suit, inter-alia on the ground that the drawings Annexure A-1 to A-11 to the plaint in which the plaintiff claimed copyright were in fact the drawing authored by CMERI and with respect whereto the plaintiff had no right to maintain the action. Per contra, the contention of the plaintiff was that though it had initially commenced manufacture on the basis of the drawings in which CMERI had a right, the plaintiff had over the years made its own innovation, improvement, research and the drawings Annexure A-1 to A-11 were of the plaintiff and not of CMERI. The plaintiff as Annexures C-1 to C-8 to the replication filed the drawings which the plaintiff claimed were of the CMERI. According to plaintiff, drawings B-1 to B-10 were similar not to drawings C-1 t