MICROSOFT CORPORATION Vs. VISHAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 29th May 2013, while directing issuance of summons in the suit and granting an interim order restraining the Defendants from using any unlicensed software programmes of Plaintiff No.1 company, the Court also appointed Local Commissioners ("LCs") to visit the premises of the Defendant No.2, NSI Infinium Global Pvt. Ltd. ("NIGPL") in three different locations to carry out the directions prayed for in IA No. 9363 of 2013 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").

(2.) Mr. Gyan Chand, a Protocol Assistant of this Court, was appointed as LC to visit the premises of NIGPL at Ahmedabad, Mr. Abin Mathew, Advocate, to visit the premises at Mahipalpur, New Delhi and Ms. Tina Gupta, Advocate to visit the premises in Mumbai.

(3.) The reports of the LCs have since been filed. On 2nd September 2013, while perusing the reports of the LCs, Mr. Abin Mathew and Ms. Tina Gupta, it appeared that the directions issued to them by the Court could not be implemented. Both the reports stated that they were refused access to the computer systems installed in the premises visited by them by the officers of NIGPL. At that stage, the report of the third LC, Mr. Gyan Chand, was not on record. The following order was passed on 2nd September 2013: