G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral):--

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyrights, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits, damages etc. Summons were issued in the suit on 23.01.2008, 29.04.2008, 10.11.2008 and 29.04.2009. On 13.08.2009 Defendant No. 2 entered appearance and fresh summons were issued to Defendant No. 1. None appeared on behalf of Defendant No. 1 despite service, hence Defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex parte on 15.01.2010 and Defendant No. 2 was deleted from the array of parties as there was no necessity of impleading the proprietary concern of its business name as defendant No. 2.

2. On 17.08.2010, defendant No. 1 put in appearance and filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. On 30.09.2011, defendant No. 1, Mr. Rajiv Trehan stated on oath that he is not the proprietor of Defendant No. 2 firm and had no connection whatsoever with M/S Kudrat Infotech. On 31.01.2012 counsel for Defendant No. 1 stated that Defendant No. 2 is a sole proprietary concern and Mr Karan Deep Singh is the sole proprietor. On 07.11.2013, order dated 15.01.2010 wherein Defendant No. 2 was deleted from the array of parties and Defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex parte was recalled and fresh summons were issued to Defendant No. 2 by all modes. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of defendant No. 2 and consequently Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte on 03.07.2014.

3. The Plaintiffs have filed affidavit by way of evidence of Constituted Attorney of Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 Mr Achuthan Sreekumar (PW1). Letter of Authority and Power of Attorney in favor of Mr Achuthan Sreekumar has been exhibited as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 respectively. PW1 has deposed that at the time of filing of the present suit, Mr Anand Banerjee was the constituted attorney and that he recognizes the signature of Mr Anand Banerjee, affixed in the plaint in his capacity as the constituted attorney of plaintiffs. A notarized copy of the Power of Attorney and the letter of Authority as executed by the Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 in favor of Mr Anand Banerjee have been exhibited as Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4.

4. PW1 has deposed that Microsoft Corporation is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, USA, having their principal office at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399, USA. He has further deposed that Plaintiff No. 2, Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited is the wholly owned marketing subsidiary of the Plaintiff No. 1 Microsoft Corporation, having their office at Eros Corporate Towers, 5th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019, and is an entity incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff No. 2 was set up in the year 1989 to provide marketing, promotion, anti-piracy awareness campaigns and actions and channel development support to the Plaintiff No. 1 and/or its affiliates. Additionally, the products of the Plaintiff No. 1 are distributed in New Delhi through various authorized distributors.

5. PW1 has also deposed that Plaintiff No. 1 (Microsoft) was set up in the year 1975 and is the biggest software publisher for personal and business computing in the world. The Plaintiff No. 1 engages in the development, manufacture, licensing, and support of a range of software products for various computing devices. Its software products include operating systems for servers, personal computers (PC), and intelligent devices; server applications for distributed computing environments; information worker productivity applications; and software developments tools. Plaintiff No. 1 also sells video game console (Xbox), video games and engages in online business through various Internet portals (MSN etc.). The Plaintiffs’ popular software products include the most widely used operating system software, MICROSOFT WINDOWS (various versions), and application software such as MICROSOFT OFFICE (various versions) and VISUAL STUDIO (various ver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document