CS(OS) No.497/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.497/2009 % Date of Decision: 27.03.2009 Microsoft Corporation & Another …. Plaintiffs Through Ms.Bihu Sharma, Advocate. Versus Mr.B.L. Agrawal and Others …. Defendants Through Mr.Kirat Singh and Mr.Shashank Sharma, Advocate along with defendants in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * IA No.4222/2009 This is an application by the parties for decreeing the suit in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. Under the settlement, the defendants have agreed that they will not used unlicenced softwares of the plaintiff or indulge in any act that would amount to infringement of plaintiff No.1‟s copyright in its computer programme. The defendants have also estimated and determined the software licence which would be required the details of which are given in Annexure A to the application. The defendants have CS(OS) No.497/2009 Page 2 of 4 also undertaken to the plaintiff that they will purchase the proof of purchase of licence enumerated in Schedule „A‟ by 2nd May, 2009. The defendants have also paid an amount of Rs.8.00 lakh by a demand draft bearing No.207630 dated 26th March, 2009 drawn on State Bank of India, Raipur Branch in terms of the settlement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the demand draft has been made in the name of “Sai Kripa & Associates” in place of “Saikrishna & Associates. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has accepted the draft with an undertaking by the learned counsel for the defendants that the said draft shall either be replaced by another demand draft drawn in favour of “Saikrishna & Associates” or the amount of Rs.8.00 lakh will be transferred in the account of “Saikrishna & Associates”. The account number of “Saikrishna & Associates” has been taken by the counsel for the defendants who undertakes on behalf of defendants to transfer the amount by 31st March, 2009. On receipt of amount of Rs.8 lakhs, the plaintiffs shall return the draft in the name of “Sai Kripa & Associates”. On the undertaking of the defendants, the plaintiffs have also no objection for de-sealing the computers which were sealed pursuant to order dated 17th March, 2009 and to release all the computer forthwith to the defendants. The defendants have also agreed that for a period of three years, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to conduct unannounced audits of the CS(OS) No.497/2009 Page 3 of 4 softwares of the plaintiff No.1 contained on the computer systems of defendants. The application is signed by the authroised representative of plaintiff and the defendants and is also signed by their respective counsels. The application is also supported by the affidavit of Mr.Vishal Ahuja, Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff company and Mr.B.L. Aggarwal, defendant No.1, and Mr.Siddharth Agarwal, authorized signatory of the defendants No.2 to 13. There does not seem to be any impediment in allowing the application. Consequently, the application is allowed, subject to the undertaking of the defendants‟ counsel that the draft for Rs.8.00 lakh which inadvertently has been issued in the name of “Sai Kripa & Associates” will either be issued in the name of “Saikrishna & Associates” or an amount of Rs.8.00 lakh will be transferred by the defendants to the account of “Saikrishna & Associates” by 31st March, 2009. With these directions, the application is allowed. CS(OS) No.497/2009 The parties have settled their disputes and in terms of the settlement the decree is to be passed. The terms of settlement are incorporated in the application being IA No.4222/2009 which has since been allowed. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of settlement entered between the parties which are incorporated CS(OS) No.497/2009 Page 4 of 4 in IA No.4222/2009. Decree sheet be drawn where IA No.4222/2009 shall form part of the decree. Learned counsel for the defendants states that the seized computes are with the defendants on superdari. In the circumstances, the goods seized by the Local Commissioner which are on superdari are released to the defendants and the defendants are discharged as superdar of the seized goods. Parties are left to bear their own costs. All the pending applications are also disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the parties dasti under the signatures of the Court Master of this Court. March 27, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’