INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD Vs. PUNJAB TRACTORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I would dispose of two applications IA No. 3205/2005 in CS(OS) No. 301/2003 and IA No. 1637/2005 in CS(OS) No. 470/2004. Both applications are under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC. IA 3205/2005 was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint in CS(OS) No. 301/2003 while IA No. 1637/2005 was filed by the same applicant for amendment of the written statement in CS(OS) No. 470/2004. As common arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and both these suits are being heard and decided together, it will be appropriate to decide both these applications by a common order.

(2.) International Tractors Limited filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Punjab Tractors Limited, their employees and agents etc. from dealing in the tractors, tractor housings or tractor components which are an identical or substantial reproduction of the drawings of CMERI made from time to time in respect of tractors and including those subject matter of CS(OS) No. 858/1999 between the parties in respect of tractors upto 60 HP with the exception of 20 HP tractors and from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in that regard as well as for rendition of accounts and other reliefs. According to the plaintiff, a Memorandum of Undertaking was signed on 30th April, 1999 with Renault of France and the plaintiff. Wide publicity was given to the joint venture. The plaintiff company had approached the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for a license to manufacture tractors based on its own drawings and knowhow. Under cover of agreement dated 7th June, 1999, CSIR granted the plaintiff an exclusive license. NRDC also granted to the plaintiff company an exclusive license in relation to the tractors already being manufactured by it on 17th June, 1999. Under this license, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to manufacture such tractors with the use of its technology. In terms of the license deed, the plaintiff could not interfere with the technology or means of the defendant with respect to tractors of 20 HP manufactured by the defendant. On this premise, the plaintiff brought the present suit that the defendant was committing breach of rights of the plaintiff as controlled under the license deed and was infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.

(3.) This suit was contested by the defendant on merits. According to the defendant, in relation to the drawings of 20 HP tractors, it was not infringing any copyright as it was using the drawings which were different of the NRDC/CMERI drawings. The entire suit was stated to be motivated and has been used as a pressure tactics to obstruct the production activity of the defendant. The defendant also relied upon the pleadings made in the earlier suit (CS(OS) No. 858/1999) between the parties. It is the case of the defendant that all major aggregates of the tractor i.e. the gear box, differential housing and rear axle system, hydraulics front axle system were formulated and developed by the research and development team of CMERI. The hydraulic system was later patented in India. The Government of Punjab being desirous of setting up a factory to manufacture tractors based upon the said technology and knowhow, the defendant was promoted by the Government of Punjab Undertaking to undertake the manufacture and sale of tractors. The defendant is authorised manufacture of the tractors and even under the terms of the license agreement, the defendant has been duly protected in regard to the tractors referred to in the plaint.