M/S TIRUPATI CONST. WELL(P) LTD v. CAD STUDIO & ORS

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest? V.K. JAIN, J (Oral) IA No.5144/2008 (O.39 R.[1] & 2 CPC) The plaintiff which is a private limited company purchased 10 stand alone licences of the software Auto CAD Revit Architecture suite 2008 from defendant no.1, which is an authorized agent of defendant no.2 for this software. Defendant no.3 has been appointed as an architect by the 2010:DHC:5517 plaintiff company for the projects which it is developing. The software purchased by the plaintiff company is being used by defendant no.3 exclusively for the purposes of the plaintiff company. The grievance of the plaintiff company is that defendants have threatened to block the software which it has purchased from defendant no.1 on the ground that by permitting defendant no.3 to use the software the plaintiff company had licensed the same to him without prior permission from the defendants, which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions contained in the license agreement between the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2.

2. Since the plaintiff is a company, it must work through some natural persons who can be either its employees or some other persons who may be engaged by it for working for and on its behalf. If the software produced by the plaintiff company is used by a professional such as an architect engaged by it, exclusively for business purposes of the plaintiff company, that does not amount to the plaintiff company further licensing/sub-licensing that software to him. Obviously there could have been no objection from defendants no.1 and 2, had the software been used by some regular employee of the plaintiff company. In my view there can be no valid objection in law if the same software is used by an agent of the plaintiff company so long as he does not use it with any purpose other than business of the plaintiff company. According to learned counsel for defendants no.1 and 2 it is not technically feasible for them to block the usage of this software. However, this is not a matter on which the Court can take a final view at this stage.

3. If defendants no.1 and 2 block the software which has been purchased from them by the plaintiff company during pendency of the suit that may substantially affect the working of the plaintiff company and it may not be possible to quantify such a loss in monetary term. Defendants no.1 and 2 are therefore restrained from blocking usage of software AutoCAD Revit Architecture suite 2008 by defendant no.3 so long as the software is used solely and exclusively for the business purpose of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company will furnish an undertaking stating therein that the software purchased by it from defendants no.1 and 2 shall not be used by defendant no.3 for any purpose other than the business purposes by plaintiff company.

4. Defendant no.3 is directed not to use aforesaid software for any purpose other than business purpose of the plaintiff company. It is made clear that if he uses the software for any other purpose, it would amount to violation of order of this court and will entail legal consequences for that violation. The learned counsels for the parties state that the suit can be disposed of in terms of the interim order passed by the court. List the suit on 23rd November, 2010.

(V.K. JAIN)

JUDGE NOVEMBER 15, 2010 vld