Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. Kamal, J
LT. COL. D. K. HAVANOOR (RETD.) – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP No. 8530 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravi K.G, Rachitha Nanaiah
For the Respondents: Kumar M.N, Gitanjali Miriam Mathew
A writ petition is not the appropriate legal remedy for seeking monetary damages from private parties for alleged copyright infringement; such claims must be pursued before a competent civil court.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Recovery of Damages - Seeking monetary compensation from private parties for alleged copyright infringement is not maintainable in a writ petition. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether a writ petition is maintainable for seeking damages from private parties for copyright infringement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of copyright infringement and demand for monetary damages. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. writ petitions cannot be entertained for seeking damages from private parties. (Para 5) |
| 3. disposal of petition with liberty to approach a competent civil court. (Para 6 , 7) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT AWARDING USD 2,500,000 (2.5 MILLION USD) AS MENTIONED IN ANNX-G DTD 2.6.2014 TO ME TO BE PAID BY R3 TO 6 THROUGH THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner essentially seeking redressal of his grievance of infringement of copyright, allegedly committed by respondent Nos. 3 to 9. Petitioner also claimed to have initiated the proceedings by filing complaints before the Halasuru Police Station, Bengaluru, one of which is registered in Crime No.366 of 2013.
2. Averments in the petition and the grounds urged indicate that, eBay.com of EBay Incorporation represented by EBay India Pty. Ltd. has displayed Book purportedly belonging to the petitioner by way of trade and has also offered sale and sold the same for 12.53 US dollars.
3. Petitioner has issued notice through his counsel on 02.06.2014, seeking payment of damages in 2,500,000 (2.5 million US dollars) to be paid to him, on account of infringement of his intellectual property rights.
4. Thus, suffice to state that the grievance of the petitioner is alleged infringement of his purported copyrights.
5. Writ petition seeking direction to respondent Nos. 3 to 9, who are the private parties to pay said damages of 2,500,000 (2.5 million US dollars) cannot be entertained.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submit that, they have no role of any nature whatsoever in the cause of action being propagated by the petitioner, and that they have been misjoined as parties to the petition.
7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance before a competent Court of law, if so, advised.
