THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 07.01.2008 + IA No. 14988/2007 in CS (OS) 2403/2007 AUTODESK, INC & ANR. ...Plaintiffs - versus - MR ANISH SINGHAL ...Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Plaintiffs : Mr Ankush Mahajan For the Defendants 2 & 5 : Mr Ray Vikram Nath CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J(ORAL) 1. This is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 jointly filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that he has instructions from his clients to not proceed any further against the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and no reliefs are sought against the said defendants. CS(OS) 2403/2007 Page No.1 of 4 2. Insofar as the plaintiffs on the one hand and the remaining defendants (defendant No.2 and 5) are concerned, they have arrived at a compromise and/ or settlement. The defendants were using unlicensed software belonging to the plaintiff without paying any consideration for the same. It has now been agreed by the said defendants and they undertake that they will not at any time use unlicensed software of the plaintiffs or indulge in any act that would amount to infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright in the various computer programs referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of the said application. It has also been agreed by the defendants to purchase the licences in respect of the said softwares mentioned in paragraph 2(b) for which purpose a total consideration of Rs 97,72,700/- has been agreed to be paid by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiffs. In addition, a sum of Rs 16 lacs is also agreed to be paid by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff No.1 by way of damages and legal costs. Consequently, a total sum of Rs 1,13,72,700/- has been agreed to be paid by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff No.1. The said amount stands paid as indicated in the application itself. 3. The learned counsel for the parties state that although prayer clause of the application seeks that the plaintiffs be permitted to CS(OS) 2403/2007 Page No.2 of 4 withdraw the suit against the defendants, that is a typographical error and since the application has been moved under Order 23 Rule 3, the actual prayer is that the suit be decreed in terms of the settlement and the compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. The application is signed by Mr Gautam Dassharma as authorized signatory of the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.5. It is also signed by Mr Vishal Ahuja, who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Affidavits of the said Mr Gautam Dassharma and Mr Vishal Ahuja have also been filed in support of the application. It has also been signed by the respective counsel for the parties. The application be marked as Ext. C-1. 5. I have considered the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and I find the same to be lawful. The compromise/ settlement is taken on record. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement Ext. C-1 which shall form part of the decree. 6. A small issue has been raised with regard to the court fees payable in view of the fact that the defendant No. 2 is to pay a sum of CS(OS) 2403/2007 Page No.3 of 4 Rs 97,72,700/- by way of the price of the licences which it has obtained from the plaintiffs. Insofar as the price of the licence for software is concerned, that would not fall within the category of the damages and, therefore, in my view no court fees would be payable on this amount. As regards the damages component, the same has been computed at Rs 16 lacs. In the plaint the relief of damages has been valued at Rs 20,00,200/- and court fees amounting to Rs 21,900/- has already been paid thereon. That covers the amount of Rs 16 lacs awarded by way of damages. No other court fees would be payable. The formal decree be prepared. This application, the suit and all other pending applications stand disposed of. The next date fixed in the matter stands cancelled. BADAR DURREZ AHMED (JUDGE) January 07, 2008 SR CS(OS) 2403/2007 Page No.4 of 4