1 nms4169-08 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4169 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3245 OF 2008 Sai Ram Infosys Network Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....Defendants Mr.Vinod Bhagat with Mr.Dhiren Karania i/b G.S. Hegde & V.A. Bhagat for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is an action for infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyright stated to be contained in the computer programme by them. The same pertains to the software for capturing readings of meters, including energy meters using digital/conventional cameras and converting the same into a database for issuing bills to consumers. The plaintiffs have sought consequential reliefs in such an action. The plaintiffs’ work has been registered under the Copyrights Act, 1957. 2. According to the plaintiffs, they handed over the necessary material to the defendants in the course of negotiations in respect of the contract. The plaintiffs allege that the work order was issued on 22.6.2001 2 nms4169-08 and the software was in fact used by the defendants for about a year and half. 3. By an ad-interim order dated 9.2.2009 the learned Judge recorded the statement made on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiffs’ software was not being used by the defendants. In view thereof, the learned Judge did not pass any ad-interim orders. 4. The stand taken by the defendants does not appear to have changed. Thereafter the written statement has been filed. The written statement sets out in detail the manner in which the defendants allegedly developed its own software for its aforesaid use. The defendants have also alleged that the plaintiffs’ software was inadequate and not suitable for its purpose and that the same had in fact completely failed. The defendants have also denied the allegations that the plaintiffs handed over their software. Various allegations have been made by the defendants regarding the quality of the plaintiffs’ software. It is contended that the defendants use an entirely different process involving inter-alia a combination of various software. It is alleged that the plaintiffs never provided the defendants with any software and source code on any conditions of confidentiality. 5. In effect therefore, the defendants have denied using the plaintiffs’ software altogether. The tenor of the statements made at the ad- interim stage and in the written statement is that the defendants do not intend using the plaintiffs’ software either. 6. The defendants are absent today and therefore, the question of their making a statement does not arise. However, in view of what is stated 3 nms4169-08 in the written statement, the defendants cannot be prejudiced by an order restraining them from using the plaintiffs’ copyright work. 7. In the circumstances, the notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to costs.