The main legal point established in the judgment is that industrial drawings can qualify as artistic works under the Copyright Act, and unauthorized reproduction and use of such drawings can constitute copyright infringement.

JUDGMENT :

Roshan Dalvi, J.

The Plaintiffs claim to be manufacturers of certain gratings used for industrial purposes. Initially the manufacture of gratings was by traditional handmade technique. After 1997, the Plaintiffs claim to have manufactured the Electro Fold Gratings. For this purpose, they claim to have imported a second hand Electro Fold machine in the assembled form from a European manufacturer. It was not found suitable to Indian conditions and accordingly the Plaintiffs made certain improvements and modifications to those machines through the employees of Plaintiff No. 2. Their work was documented in the form of certain drawings for the manufacture of several parts of the gratings.

2. Under an Agreement dated 12.12.1997 between the Plaintiffs, the artistic work containing in those drawings made by the employees of Plaintiff No. 2 came to be assigned to Plaintiff No. 1.

3. Between 1999 and 2001, the Plaintiffs claim to have created the first indigenous Electro Fold machine on the basis of those drawings. The Plaintiffs have since maintained only two sets of those drawings; one in the possession of Rajkumar Borkar of the Maintenance Department and other with Defendant No. 4 at his office at Jejuri. The contracts of employment with Defendants 5 to 7 are not denied. These contracts contain confidential clause with regard to the drawings. The Plaintiffs claim a copyright in those drawings as artistic work. The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants 1, 2 and 3, who are sister Concerns, through their partners and Directors, Defendants 8 to 12 have infringed the Plaintiffs' copyright in those artistic work contained in the drawings by reproduction of those drawings into finished products which they use for their business.

4. Defendants 4 to 7 were admittedly employees of the Plaintiffs. Defendant 4 has left for Dubai and since not contested that Suit despite service. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 have since resigned and joined Defendants 1 and 2, who are in the same business as the Plaintiffs.

5. Defendants 13 to 23 are various suppliers who have received orders from Defendants 1 and 2, represented by Defendants 5, 6 and 7 and have supplied certain products which are claimed to be products manufactured upon infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyright in their drawings. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, claimed the relief of injunction against the Defendants from infringing their copyright in the drawings mentioned in Exhibit G to the Plaint or making use of or making any copies thereof or making any three dimensional object of machine parts which would be reproduction of the Plaintiffs' drawings or a colourable imitation thereof. The Plaintiffs have also claimed damages in the Suit from the Defendants for infringement of their copyright.

6. The Plaintiffs have 330 drawings on the basis of which they manufacture new Electro Fold wielding machine as described in the Plaint. In the Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs have prayed for a similar relief of injunction and order for delivery of the drawings.

7. The Plaintiffs' claim is based upon the fact that they realized on 19th April 2005 that some of their drawings were missing from the drawers of Defendant 4 where they were kept by him. Defendant 4 has since left the Plaintiffs Company and gone to Dubai. The Plaintiffs learnt that he had caused photocopies of these drawings to be made from time to time. The Plaintiffs have relied upon the Affidavits of two Assistant Managers and their driver in that behalf. The Plaintiffs made inquiries in the market and learnt that Defendant 2 had placed orders with some suppliers for identical parts. These orders were got placed under the signature of Defendant 5, who was earlier the Plaintiffs' employee. Two of such Purchase Orders in the name of Defendant 2 dated 15.3.2005 and 23.3.2005 addressed to a supplier one Sumeet Dhody, marked Exhibit L to the Plaint, are relied upon by the Plaintiffs to show as an example of how Defendants 1 and 2 through their employees wh