Software piracy suit decreed where the defendants did not file a written statement, the Court proceeding under the principle in Order VIII Rule 10. Permanent injunction granted against copying, reproducing, storing, installing or using unlicensed copies of the plaintiff's software, together with delivery up under section 58 of all unlicensed copies and the duplicating equipment used, including computers, disc writers, stampers, hard disks, packaging, labels and advertising material.
Rival claims to first ownership of copyright in a feature film resolved in favour of the plaintiff: his suit decreed and the cross suit dismissed. Because no issues had been framed in the later suit, the Court recast common issues for both. On the contest over who produced the film, it held that a certificate of the Central Board of Film Certification naming another applicant and producer is strong evidence that the film was completed and was viewed by the examining committee, but is no more than prima facie evidence of who the producer is, and must be weighed with the rest of the evidence, the more so where the rival claimant holds a certificate for the same film under a different title. On the evidence, the plaintiff's contemporaneous handwritten shooting ledger, his agreements with the lead cast, music composer, dance master, cinematographer and lyricist, and the original bound script were decisive. The counter claimant's agreements had been executed by a partnership firm that was not in existence on their dates, he asserted that the bound script was in his possession but never produced it, and he led no evidence for his allegation that the plaintiff had misappropriated the ledger. The plaintiff was therefore the person who took the initiative and responsibility for making the film, which made him the producer under section 2(uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the first owner of copyright under section 17, so that the exclusive rights in section 14 accrued to him. The dates on which the rival suits were instituted were held not to be determinative.
Summary judgment granted under Order XIII-A in a software piracy suit. With nothing on record to suggest the plaintiffs' statement of facts was false or incorrect, and no material to show the defendants' use of the STAAD and SACS software at two offices was authorised or licensed, infringement was taken as established. A permanent injunction followed restraining copying, reproducing, storing, installing or using unlicensed copies.
Suit for copyright infringement in tractor engineering drawings dismissed after trial, each party bearing its own costs. The Court held on the evidence that the drawings met the requirement of originality under the Copyright Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to be recognised as their author, and on that footing rejected the objection that the suit failed for non-joinder of the foreign parent. The suit nevertheless failed on the critical question of copying: the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant had copied its drawings, and the remedies claimed for copyright infringement therefore did not arise.
Suit decreed against ex parte defendants for unlicensed public performance of a copyright society's repertoire at live music events. The Court held that a copyright society registered with the Central Government is permitted under sections 18, 19 and 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 to grant licences and collect royalty on behalf of its members, and that the evidence of the society's licensing executive and its investigator established that the songs performed at the event in question were published by its members. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the society was entitled to the injunctive relief claimed and to rendition of accounts with a decree of profits. The first defendant had agreed while the suit was pending to settle for Rs.20,00,000 with GST but paid only about Rs.9,90,000 and repeatedly violated undertakings given to the Court, so the plaintiff was directed to give credit for the amounts received and prosecute the suit on merits. On counsel's submission that the balance would be paid, the decree for rendition of accounts was made conditional: it comes into effect only if the outstanding amount is not paid by the stated date, and payment is to be treated as discharge of that obligation. Applications alleging wilful disobedience of interim injunctions were closed without separate orders because the permanent injunction and rendition of accounts were being granted in the judgment itself.
