INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD Vs. PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint in this case. The earlier application filed by the plaintiff being IA 3205/2005 was disposed of vide this Court's order dated 28th July, 2005. The said application was partially allowed. That order has attained finally as none of the parties to the suit has challenged the said order as stated at the bar during the course of hearing of the present application.

(2.) Without any hesitation, the facts of the suit can be stated from the order of the Court dated 28th July, 2005. Internatioinal 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 which are 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 licence 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 the 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 licence deed and was infringing the copyright of the plaintiff. 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 from the NRDC/CMERI drawings. The entire suit was stated to be motivated and has been used as 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 knowwhow, the defendant was promoted by the Government of Punjab Undertaking to undertake the manufacture and sale of tractors. The defendant is authorised manufacturer 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.

(3.) The parties have done admission and/or denial of their documents but no issues have been framed in the suit as yet. The plaintiff then filed an application for amendment of the plaint stating that in terms of the license deed dated 17th June, 1999, the plaintiff was not to interfere with the use of the technology by the defendant with respect to 20 HP tractors manufactured by the defendant. A further supplementary deed was entered into between the plaintiff and the CMERI on 3rd May, 2001 whereunder the knowhow and drawings licensed under the June 1999 agreement was extended to cover all horse powers upto 60 HP except 20 HP, the rights of which were vested with the NRDC. Thereafter again, a Deed of Assignment was executed by CSIR on 12th July, 2002 vide which the plaintiff became the sole/exclusive owner of knowhow in respect of tractors upto 60 HP with the exception of 20 HP tractors. Still another Assignment Deed dated 13th August, 2004 signed between the parties wherein the plaintiff was assigned all rights in the pertinent tractor knowhow for 20 HP tractors. According to the plaintiff, knowhow also includes any mprovements/developments or modification thereof made prior to or after the effective date for the manufacturing of 20 HP tractors in modified or unmodified form. In the light of these facts and particularly the deed of assignment dated 13th August, 2004, the plaintiff prays for amendment of the plaint, thereby widening the scope of the suit and making similar prayers by amending paragraphs 13 (1), 16, 20 and 21 of the existing plaint.