Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
ANSYS INC – Appellant
Versus
INVERTED ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CS(COMM) 904/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shantanu Sahay, Ms. Vareesha Irfan
For the Respondents: Ms. Diya Kapur, Ms. Tahira, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Pranav Garg, Mr. Raghav Kumar, Mr. Aditya
The court allows filing of audio evidence and additional documents, granting an interim injunction against unauthorized software use, emphasizing the need for compliance verification through a local inspection.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 and Order XI Rule 1(4) - Application for permission to file audio recording and additional documents - Permission granted to file pen-drive containing audio recording - Leave granted to file additional documents within thirty days, adhering to the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and Delhi High Court Rules. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Copyright - Allegations of infringement - The plaintiff, a global provider of software programs, alleged unauthorized use of proprietary software by the defendants - Interim injunction granted restraining defendants from using pirated/unlicensed software of the plaintiff pending hearing - Local Commissioner appointed to inspect defendants' computers to identify any infringing software. (Paras 8-21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for alleged copyright infringement of its software programs, claiming unauthorized use by the defendants, who offer to comply with inspection requests to confirm the absence of infringing software.
Findings of Court:
Permitting the filing of additional documents and audio recording and granting an interim injunction against unauthorized software usage, with an inspection process established to verify compliance.
Issues: The court addressed whether to permit the filing of audio evidence, the need for additional documents, and the allegations of software infringement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence in copyright cases, facilitating compliance through local inspection to prevent unauthorized use - An interim injunction was deemed appropriate to protect the plaintiff's rights pending resolution.
Result: Interim injunction granted in favor of the Plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. permission to file audio recording and additional documents (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. defendants' assertions on software usage and inspection (Para 4 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. injunction against unauthorized software use (Para 8 , 9 , 21) |
| 4. local commissioner appointed for inspection (Para 19 , 20) |
O R D E R
% 28.08.2025 I.A. 21148/2025 (Seeking permission to file audio recording in a pen-drive)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] inter alia seeking permission to file audio recording of the telephonic conversation as referred to in the present suit on a pen-drive and to allow the plaintiff to play the audio recording, mentioned in paragraph no. 39 of the plaint, at the hearing of the suit.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff is permitted to file the pen-drive in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 [‘DHC Rules’]. The relief of playing the audio recording is not being granted at this stage and will be considered at an appropriate stage.
3. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 21147/2025 (Under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC)
CS(COMM) 904/2025 Page 1 of 6
4. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ], within thirty (30) days.
5. The plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents will file the same within 30 days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the DHC Rules.
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
7. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 904/2025 & I.A. 21146/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
8. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction on the allegations of infringement of copyright of the plaintiff’s software programs.
9. It is stated that the plaintiff is a global provider of engineering simulation software programs that are used to take entire product development process to a space where software’s digital prototyping, simulation and analysis tools help in various verticals. The details of the proprietary software of the plaintiff are set out at paragraph no. ‘6’ of the plaint.
10. Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the defendants are unauthorizedly using plaintiff’s software programs and, in this regard, he refers to the infringing activities carried out by the defendants, the details of which are set out at paragraph no. ‘34’ of the plaint.
11. Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the defendants and accepts summons in the suit and notice in the I.A. CS(COMM) 904/2025 Page 2 of 6
21146/2025 on behalf of the defendants. She states that she will file her vakalatnama within one (1) week.
12. Ms. Diya Kapur, learned senior counsel for the defendants’ states on instructions that the defendants do not have any use for the software programs of the plaintiff in its course of business.
12.1 She states that the defendants are willing to make a statement in terms of the prayer clause 53(a) of the plaint, that the defendants do not intend to use the proprietary software programs of the plaintiff and the decree of the injunction can be passed.
12.2 She states that the defendants’ office comprises of approximately 200 employees using up to 100 computers approximately. She states that the defendants have issued specific instructions to their employees to make no use of the proprietary software programs of the plaintiff. She states that the office of the defendant is situated at - Inverted Energy Private Limited, D- 167, Sector 63, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301 [GST: 09AAECI7408M1Z5]. 12.3 She submits that however, if without the notice of the defendants, some of its employees, have downloaded the plaintiff’s software programs in an unauthorized manner; the defendants are willing to offer an inspection of its computers and if found,
