SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS Vs. R MODI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs. In the plaint it is pleaded that the plaintiffs have developed various software programmes and therefore the proprietary right in the software programmes vest with the plaintiffs. In short, the plaintiffs claim proprietary interest in computer programmes as owners of the copyright in the programmes. It is pleaded that one strategy adopted by pirates is to purchase a computer software but install the same in computer hardware in excess of the license number. The appellants plead that they received information that the defendants are resorting to piracy. To verify the veracity of the information one Anil Nayyar was engaged by the plaintiffs as an investigator who contacted one Ms.Rupali Modi in the office of elogic Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The investigator told Rupali Modi that he represented an overseas client who was desirous of identifying a company which could develop and provide architectural drawing. Rupali Modi answered in the affirmative. The investigator reached the office of elogic Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., carrying with him an audio recording device. Ms.Rupali Modi took the investigator around her office in the premises of the company and introduced him to one Praveen who claimed to be an IT Administrator. The investigator was informed that elogic Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. deals in many areas including architectural and engineering services. It had employed 80 persons and was using approximately 70 computer systems for its businesses and was using the software programmes copyright whereof was with the plaintiffs. On checking their database, evinced that the computer programmes of plaintiff No.1, 2 and 5 used by elogic Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. were unlicensed and regarding plaintiff No.3 and 4, the software was installed on computers in excess of the license number. Injunction and damages have been prayed for.

(2.) The plaint has been verified by one Achuthan Sreekumar as the constituted attorney of plaintiff No.1 and Anand Banerjee as the constituted attorney of plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5. Both have verified the pleadings.

(3.) In the written statement filed, inter -alia it is pleaded that the plaintiffs are guilty of illegal entrapment. The authority of Achuthan Sreekumar and Anand Banerjee to institute the plaint on behalf of the plaintiffs has been denied.