CS(OS) No.319/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.319/2009 % Date of Decision: 13.03.2009 Adobe Systems Incorporated & Anr …. Plaintiffs Through Ms.Aarshia Behl, Advocate. Versus Mr.A.Tiwari & Ors ….Defendants Through Ms.Haripriya Padmanbhan, Advocate for defendants No.1 and 3. 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 IA No.3364/2009 This is an application by plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 3 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to decree the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the terms of the settlement are incorporated in the application. Under the settlement, the defendants No.1 and 3 have undertaken to the plaintiffs that they will not use unlicensed software of the plaintiffs and will not violate the copyright of the plaintiffs in their software. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also agreed to purchase the licensed software detailed in Schedule A to the application and to CS(OS) No.319/2009 Page 2 of 4 furnish proof of the purchase of the software titles by 23rd April, 2009 to the plaintiffs. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also issued post dated cheques dated 23rd February, 2009; 23rd March, 2009 and 23rd April, 2009 for purchase of the licensed software of plaintiffs as detailed in Schedule „A‟. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also undertaken to pay damages and legal cost of Rs.5.00 lakh to the plaintiffs which amount has been paid by defendants No.1 and 3 to the plaintiffs in the name of M/s. Saikrishna & Associates, attorneys of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have agreed to release the computers/central processing units which were seized and sealed by the Local Commissioner on account of Defendants having unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs on them. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also agreed to give unannounced audits of the plaintiff‟s software on the central process units/computers of the defendants for a period of 5 calendar years from the date of the settlement. The defendants No.1 and 3 have also contended that the terms of settlement are fair and acceptable to them. The application is signed by the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 3 and their respective counsel. The application is also supported by the affidavits of Mr.Vishal Ahuja, Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiffs Company, and Shri Ajay Tiwari, Defendant No.1 and the Director & Chief Executive Officer of Defendant No.3 company. Considering the terms of the settlement arrived at between the CS(OS) No.319/2009 Page 3 of 4 parties, there does not seem to be any impediment in allowing the settlement and passing a decree in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Consequently, the application is allowed. CS(OS) NO.319/2009 Learned counsel for plaintiffs, on instructions, states that the defendant No.2 be deleted as party to the suit. Consequently, the defendant No.2 is deleted as a party to the suit. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 3 have settled their disputes in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the terms of which are incorporated in the application being IA No.3364/2009, which application has since been allowed. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 3. Decree sheet be drawn where IA No.3364/2009 shall form part of the decree. Pending applications are disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs. IA No.3369/2009 This is an application by the plaintiffs for refund of Rs.50,000/- deposited towards special cost pursuant to order dated 16th February, 2009. The parties have settled their disputes and in terms of the settlement the suit has been decreed. Consequently, plaintiffs have become entitled for refund of Rs.50,000/- deposited on behalf of CS(OS) No.319/2009 Page 4 of 4 plaintiffs by the counsel for the plaintiff, M/s. Saikrishna & Associates”. Consequently, the application is allowed. The amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited as cost by letter dated 17th February, 2009 by cheque bearing No.90727 dated 17th February, 2009 for Rs.50,000/- be refunded forthwith to the plaintiffs by issuing an appropriate instrument in favor of “Saikrishna & Associates”, attorney of the plaintiffs. The application is disposed of. MARCH 13, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. “Dev”