(1.) THIS suit has come up for ex -parte hearing today. Defendants were served and on 22.10.2003, defendant No. 1 appeared in -person and stated that defendant No. 2 is his wife and he is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 3. He further stated that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and they would be filling application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. This application was filed by the parties. But after the filing of the application, defendants did not appear. On 17.12.2003, defendants were proceeded ex -parte and plaintiff was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit. The plaintiff has filed the same and I have heard counsel for the plaintiff.
(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark, passing off, delivery up, damages etc. The averments made in the plaint are stated in the affidavit of Mr. Nithyanandan Radhakrishnan, which is filed by way of evidence and, thereforee, the averments in this affidavit can safely be noted, which would reflect the case of the petitioner.
(3.) THE main business activities of the plaintiff relate to customized software development, re -engineering services, maintenance work, dedicated offshore software development services, marketing of computer software in India and in foreign countries. The plaintiff is also involved in the computer hardware business. The plaintiff company was incorporated in the year 1981 and has earned a very high degree of goodwill in India and abroad on account of its excellent performance. During the last twenty one years, the unique software programs invented by the plaintiff have earned international reputation and recognition. By hard work and dedicated customer service, the plaintiff has acquired the status of one of the leading exporters of computer software from India and the expression INFOSYS has become a symbol of excellence at the global level. The turnover of the plaintiff company for the year 1999 -2000 was approximately Rs. 921.47 crores.