Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1384
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Autodesk Inc & Another
Versus
Arup Das & Others
CCP No. 49 of 2011 in CS(OS) No. 947 of 2011
Decided on : 22-10-2013
For the Petitioners:Ms. Aarshia Behl, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Sumit Wadhwa, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that willful disobedience of court orders, especially in matters involving intellectual property rights, constitutes civil contempt.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Copyright Infringement - Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Order 39 Rule 7 - [142 A & B, Noida Special Economic Zone, Phase II, Noida -201 305] - [Order 26 Rule 9, Order 39 Rule 7]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit claiming injunction against infringement of their copyright and sought ad interim orders of injunction. The court granted an ex parte ad interim order of injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendant company to make an inventory of unlicensed software. The defendants obstructed the execution of the commission, leading to the petitioners alleging willful disobedience of the court's orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants willfully disobeyed the court's orders by obstructing the execution of the commission and refusing cooperation to the Local Commissioner. The court noted that the defendants' conduct amounted to contempt of court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants willfully disobeyed the court's orders by obstructing the execution of the commission and refusing cooperation to the Local Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision on the inspection of premises should be made by the Local Commissioner, and the defendants did not have the option to refuse compliance with the court's order. The court emphasized the significance of the Local Commissioner's role in investigating intellectual property rights infringement.
Final Decision: The court held the defendants guilty of civil contempt for willfully disobeying the court's orders and rejected their apology as it was not genuine and came at a late stage.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The petitioners had instituted CS (OS) No. 947/2011 against two defendants. Later, defendant no 1 stood deleted from the array of parties on the application of the plaintiffs being I.A No. 16146/2012, vide order dated 03.09.2012. The suit has been filed claiming injunction against infringement of the plaintiffs copyright, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages etc, and the same is pending adjudication before this court. The case of the plaintiffs/petitioners is that the plaintiffs are software and digital content creation companies, with ownership of intellectual property rights in softwares for construction, manufacturing, infrastructures, digital media etc.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant company is using multiple copies of the plaintiff’s software, including Auto CAD and its various versions for their business purposes without obtaining a single license from the plaintiffs.
2. The petitioners, along with the suit filed I.A. No. 6298/2011 to seek ad interim orders of injunction to restrain the said defendants from undertaking unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s software.
3. Vide order dated 25.04.2011 the court granted an ex parte ad interim order of injunction on the aforesaid application, which was confirmed by this court vide order dated 22.04.2013, to operate till the disposal of the suit.
4. The petitioners had also filed an application being I.A No. 6299/2011 under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Order 39 Rule 7 for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendant company, so as to make an inventory of the unlicensed softwares of the petitioners’ in use at the premises located at 142 A & B, Noida Special Zone, Phase II, Noida -201 305, or any other office or premises of the defendants, or any other place – where the commissioner had reason to believe that the plaintiffs’ unlicensed software was being used by the defendant, and seal the computer systems found loaded with unlicensed/ pirated software of the petitioners. This Court allowed this application and appointed Ms. Meena Bhardwaj, an officer of this Court, as the Local Commissioner to carry out the aforesaid task. The Local Commissioner has filed her report, which forms the basis of the present petition.
5. As per the report of the Local Commissioner, she along with the petitioners’ counsel and technical experts reached the premises located at 142 A & B, Noida Special Economic Zone, Phase II, Noida 201305, to execute the commission, on 9th May 2011. However, she was obstructed by the defendants in executing the Commission.
6. In her report, the Local Commissioner, inter alia, records that on 09.05.2011 at about 01:05 P.M., she reached the said premises of the respondents and met Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant of the firm. The order of this Court was showed to him and he was apprised of the purpose of the Local Commissioner’s visit. Mr. Aggarwal spoke to the CMD and the counsel for the defendant company, and asked the Local Commissioner and others accompanying her to wait for some time. The Local Commissioner along with the plaintiffs’ counsel went to the Design Department which was on the entrance itself. The door had a paper banner “Design and Engineering” pasted on it. The Local Commissioner states that she went inside the said Department and counted that there were 16 computers. She also noticed certain other computer systems in various departments, i.e. Accounts, Materials and Quality Assurance.
7. Mr. Aggarwal came back and informed that Advance Valves Private Limited i.e. the defendant company is altogether a different entity and, from the address visited by the Local Commissioner only Advance Valves Global is operating. The Local Commissioner states that she explained paragraph 28 of the order to Mr.Aggarwal which, inter alia, directs that the Local Commissioner shall visit the premises at 142 A & B, Noida Special Economic Zone, Phase II, Noida -201 305, or any other office or premi
