CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 1 of 19

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 25.02.2026

Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026

CS(COMM) 49/2023 & I.A. 1674/2023

BENTLEY SYSTEMS INC & ANR. .....Plaintiffs

versus

OILTECH ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

& ANR. ....Defendants

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shantanu Sahay, Mr.

Swstik Bisarya and Ms. Manvi Panwar,

Advocates.

For the Defendants : Mr. Muralidharan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA , J.

I.A. 11245/2024 (Seeking summary judgement)

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order

XIIIA, Rules 3 and 6(1)(a) read with Order XIII Rule 10 and Section 151

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking a summary

judgement.

2. The present suit has been instituted seeking permanent injunction

restraining copyright infringement, delivery up, rendition of accounts of

profits and damages.

3. The facts stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff no.1, Bentley

Systems Inc. is a Delaware based corporation with its principal office in

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 2 of 19

Pennsylvania, USA. Plaintiff no.2 is the wholly owned subsidiary of

plaintiff no.1 with its registered office at New Delhi.

4. It is stated that the plaintiffs are leading providers of infrastructure

software solutions to engineers, architects, geospatial professionals,

constructors etc. Plaintiff no.1 is the owner of copyright in the STAAD and

SACS software programs developed by it and marketed in India by plaintiff

no.2, which are one of the most widely used structural analysis and design

software products.

5. STAAD (STAAD.Pro) is a structural analysis and design software

application, which helps structural engineers perform 3D structural analysis

and design for both steel and concrete structures, and can transform a

physical model created in the structural design software into an analytical

model for structural analysis. SACS is an integrated finite element

structural analysis package of applications that uniquely provides for the

design of offshore structures, including oil and gas platforms, wind farms,

and topsides of FPSOs and floating platforms. SACS software has been

used by offshore engineers around the world for nearly 40 years.

6. It is stated that plaintiff no.1’s respective software programs, and all

user instruction manuals included with it are covered under the definition

of a “literary work” and are entitled to copyright protection. It is further

stated that these programmes have been developed for the plaintiffs by their

employees, during the course of their employment with them and in India,

the copyright subsisting in a work created by an employee belongs to the

employer under the ‘work for hire’ doctrine. Thus, it is stated that the

plaintiff no.1 is the owner of copyrights in their respective software

programs developed by it and marketed in India by plaintiff no.2.

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 3 of 19

7. It is stated that the plaintiffs’ software programs are ‘works’ that

were first published in the USA, which is a member country of the Berne

Convention, Universal Copyright Conventions and the World Trade

Organization Agreement. The copyrights in the software programs namely

STAAD.Pro and SACS are registered in the USA. It is stated that since

India and the USA are both member countries of all the aforesaid

Conventions, all such works first published in the USA are protected under

Indian copyright law as though their works were first published in India.

Thus, it is stated that the plaintiff no.1’s works are protected in India under

Section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

read in conjunction with the International Copyright Order, 1999.

8. It is further stated that through market sources, the plaintiffs came to

learn that its most sought- after software programs, such as the various

versions of SACS and STAAD are most susceptible to piracy. Owing to

widespread piracy and on account of the fact that the plaintiffs suffer

incalculable damage to their intellectual property rights and business on

account of various forms of piracy in their software programs, the plaintiffs

implemented Phone Home Technology, which verifies compliances of

End-User License Agreement (EULA) and records unauthorized usage as

“infringement hits”, each reflecting instances of pirated use. Every user of

the plaintiffs’ software programs is required to understand and accept the

terms and conditions of the EULA. The plaintiffs also maintain an

extensive and frequently updated database of all their licensees who have

acquired valid licenses for plaintiffs’ software. It is stated that therefore,

any person/entity using plaintiff no.1’s software in a manner which goes

beyond the EULA and/or the Customer License and Online Services

Agreement (CLOSA), is in breach of contractual rights with the plaintiffs

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 4 of 19

and would also have violated the intellectual property rights subsisting

within the software.

9. It is stated that the plaintiffs receive several infringement hits daily

and after verifying each ‘infringement hit’, the plaintiffs take steps to

identify the infringer and establish contact with it to redress the losses

incurred due to the infringement.

10. It is stated that the defendant no.1, Oiltech Engineering (India)

Private Limited, as per the MCA records, is a limited liability partnership

concern incorporated in 2008 under the Companies Act, 1956, with its

registered address in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. As per its interactive website

www.oiltech.in, the defendant no.1 also appears to have offices located in

Bangalore, Kuala Lumpur, Delhi and Changwon. Defendant no.2, Mr.

Dilip Radhakrishnan is one of the directors of the defendant no.1.

11. It is claimed that the defendant no.1 was an Enterprise License

Service Customer of the plaintiffs from 31.05.2016 to 30.05.2017, whereby

the defendant no.1 company had purchased one (1) license of SACS in

2016, which expired in 2017. It is further stated that the defendant no.1

currently has a total of three (3) legal licenses (including add- ons and

configurations) of plaintiff no.1’s MicroStation software. It is further stated

that in July 2019, the defendant no.1 reached out to one of the plaintiffs’

channel partners, Aryatech Marine & Offshore Services (P) Ltd. (Delhi), to

purchase plaintiffs’ SACS software, pursuant to which several discussions

took place between the plaintiffs’ channel partner and the defendants, but

no purchase was made from the defendants’ end.

12. It is claimed that in the month of October 2022, the plaintiffs were

informed from internal sources that the defendants were using

pirated/unauthorized versions of plaintiff no.1’s STAAD (STAAD.Pro) and

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 5 of 19

SACS software programs on their computer systems for business purposes.

It is claimed that to verify the said information, the plaintiffs’

representative checked their infringement portal to check whether any

incident reports of infringement have been generated through the security

mechanisms built into the plaintiffs’ software, which revealed that the

defendants have been using pirated/unauthorized versions of the plaintiff

no.1’s STAAD.Pro (STAAD Foundation Advanced Connect Edition) and

SACS (Connect Edition) software programs including software add-ins for

the business operations on at least 1 (one) computer system each from

August, 2022 at their Chengalpattu as well as Bengaluru offices.

13. It is stated that the plaintiffs sent a Litigation Hold Notice dated

11.10.2022 to defendant no.2, in response to which, one Mr. Joe Arokiaraj

(IT Head in defendant no.1 company), on 17.10.2022, sent a reply denying

any unauthorized usage of plaintiffs’ software programs.

14. It is further submitted that considering the longstanding business

relationship with the defendants, plaintiffs’ Indian channel partner

Aryatech again reached out to defendants multiple times from October,

2022 to December, 2022, for a potential purchase of plaintiffs’ software

program, but no positive response was received from the defendants. It is

further claimed that the plaintiffs hired an independent investigator in the

month of October, 2022, from an independent investigation company

namely eCluewise Services, who conducted various investigations on the

defendant no.1 company and during online search, the investigator came

across various profiles of defendant no.1’s employees with qualification of

Structural Design Engineer/Offshore Structural Design Engineering with

few of them even mentioning that they were working on SACS and/or

STAAD software. Thereafter, the investigator undertook telephonic

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 6 of 19

investigation of one of the defendant no.1’s employees, Mr. Sudhir

Mahalingapur, working in the Chennai branch, who confirmed that he was

using plaintiffs’ STAAD.Pro and SACS software programs. The plaintiffs

also claim that before filing of this suit, they instituted a pre -litigation

mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre,

which ended as ‘Not Settled’. Thereafter, the plaintiffs once again

conducted a check on their infringement portal to understand the extent of

the defendants’ infringing activities and consequently, instituted the present

suit.

Events during the pendency of the suit:

15. The suit was first listed on 30.01.2023, when this Court had granted

an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants and summons

were issued. Although a Written Statement was filed by the defendants on

27.04.2023, it remained under objections and thus, on 26.07.2023, a last

opportunity was granted to the defendants to remove defects and bring the

same on record. On 25.09.2023, while noting that the defects have not been

removed, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) closed the right of the

defendants to file the Written Statement as well as the reply to the

injunction application.

16. On 10.11.2023, this Court granted a final opportunity of four (4)

weeks to the defendants to bring the Written Statement on record subject to

payment of costs of Rs.1 lakh. The said costs are claimed to have never

been paid, as also recorded by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) in the

order dated 11.01.2024 and yet again, the right of the defendants to file

their Written Statement and Affidavits of Admission/Denial was closed.

Vide order dated 20.02.2024, this Court rejected the defendants’ plea for

extension of time to pay the costs as well as to file the Written Statement.

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 7 of 19

17. Thereafter, on 16.05.2024, notice was issued on I.A. 11245/2024

under Order XIII-A, CPC filed by the plaintiffs seeking summary

judgment. On 06.09.2024 and 19.11.2024, extensions were granted to the

defendants to file reply to the said application. The defendants filed a reply

on 07.03.2025, which was however returned under objections, and they

were directed to take steps to bring it on record. On 31.07.2025, a final

opportunity of one week was granted to bring the reply on record.

Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2025, this Court recorded that the reply

to I.A. 11245/2024 had remained under objections for nearly one year and,

accordingly, closed the defendants’ right to file the reply.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :

18. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Pravin Anand, learned

counsel for the plaintiffs, perused the plaint and examined the documents placed on record. 19. Mr. Muralidharan, learned counsel for the defendants had appeared

however, except for seeking one more opportunity to file a reply, did not

argue anything on the merits of the application. It is pertinent to note here that the notice of this application was issued on 16.05.2024, providing an opportunity to the defendants to file a reply within eight (8) weeks. On

06.09.2024 and 19.11.2024, extensions were granted to the defendants to file reply to the said application. From a perusal of the record, it appears that reply was filed on 07.03.2025 however, was under objections, which were never removed by the defendants despite opportunities on 07.03.2025

as well as 31.07.2025. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2025, this Court

had closed the defendants’ right to file the reply to the application in

consideration.

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 8 of 19

20. Before this Court examines the pleadings and evidence on record, it

would be pertinent to note that there is neither any Written Statement of the

defendants on record nor is there any reply qua the application seeking

summary judgement on their behalf. It is noted from the docket orders that

despite service and filing of the Written Statement, the defendants were not

vigilant and did not take enough care to bring the Written Statement on

record. Similar is the situation with the reply to the application under

consideration. Thus, in the absence of any defence, the Court is to consider

the suit and the present application.

21. It would be of some significance to bear in mind that in the absence

of any rebuttal or traverse to the facts stated in the plaint and the

application seeking summary judgement, this Court deems such facts to be

admitted and proceeds to consider the present application and dispose of

the same.

22. At the outset, it is relevant to note that Mr. Anand, learned counsel

for the plaintiffs submitted that he does not wish to press for damages and

restricts the claim to a decree of injunction and costs. This Court would

limit its examination and adjudication to the injunction and costs alone.

23. The statement of costs has been filed by the plaintiffs as per which

the plaintiffs have claimed to incur (i) Rs.2,01,000/- as Official Fees/Court

Fees; (ii) Rs.2,54,087/- as expenses incurred on investigation, surveillance

as well as miscellaneous expenses; and (iii) Rs.1,00,000/- as Legal Fees,

bringing the total approximate costs to Rs.5,55,087/-.

24. Having regard to the fact that there is neither any Written Statement

nor any reply to the present application seeking summary judgment,

ordinarily, and in terms of the judgment in Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr.

vs. Balraj Muttneja & Ors., Neutral Citation 2014:DHC:964, the need to

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 9 of 19

file the evidence by way of an affidavit in such circumstances is obviated.

This Court in the judgement dated 20.10.2023 in Puma SE vs. Ashok

Kumar, CS(COMM) 703/2022 also followed the said ratio. Although the

ratio laid down in Disney Enterprises (supra) & Puma SE (supra) were in

the context of an ex-parte proceeding where the defendants had not entered

appearance, in contradistinction thereto, in the present case, the defendants

had appeared, yet having regard to the fact that neither the Written

Statement to the plaint nor any reply to the application seeking summary

judgement, on behalf of the defendants, has been filed, there does not seem

to be any plausible defence that can be raised by the defendants on facts.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the defendants have no real

prospect of successfully defending the claim and as such, nothing impedes

this Court from considering the present application and passing appropriate

orders thereon. This Court is fortified in its view by the ratio laid down by

a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Mapele Engineers India & Anr. vs.

M/s. Regent Engineers Pvt. Ltd., in RFA(COMM) 470/2025, the relevant

paras of which are extracted hereunder:-

“21. The issue sought to be canvassed is required to be dealt with under

the scheme of Order XIII-A of the CPC, which deals with the summary

judgment. The procedure prescribed under the said Order is specifically

framed for deciding suits without recording evidence.

22. One of the objects is to have the decisions in a commercial suits

decided expeditiously, which otherwise is prescribed under the aims and

objects of the Commercial Court Act, 2015.

23. The procedure provided under the aforesaid Order XIII-A for

summary judgment may be invoked at the instance of either the plaintiff

or the defendant, however, such recourse has to be taken thereunder

after the summons have been served on the defendant or before the issues

in respect of the suit claim are framed.

24. Under Rule 3 of Order XIII-A, it is open to the Court to deliver a

summary judgment against the plaintiff or the defendant on a claim, if

the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding in the claim or the

defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 10 of 19

25. The Court can also deliver the summary judgment if there are

compelling reasons as to why the claim should not be disposed of without

recording the evidence.

26. The application for summary judgment which is to be moved in

accordance with the procedure under Sub- rule 1 of Rule 4 of the Order

XIII-A contemplates that such application must contain or satisfy the

requirement under the clause (a) to (f) thereunder.

27. Before deciding the application for summary judgment, it is

mandatory for the learned Commercial Court to grant opportunity of

hearing to the other side and the time to grant such opportunity including

that of reply to the application is prescribed to be 30 days’ notice.

28. The other side to the application for summary judgment is required to

disclose its contents to the application in addressing the points set out in

clause (a) to (f) of Sub- rule 3 of Rule 4 of Order XIIIA.

29. The said Order further empowers the Court to pass a conditional

order or decide the application in terms of the Rule 6 of Order XIII-A.

30. Under the provisions of Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC, “pleadings” are

defined to mean a plaint or a written statement. Further, under Rule 2 of

Order VI material facts are required to be pleaded and not the evidence.

xxx xxx xxx

49. The said reply is carefully perused in the light of the respective

pleading in the plaint, written statement and an application moved under

Rule 4(1) of Order XIII-A by the respondent-plaintiff. Not only the reply

to the summary judgment does not disclose the material fact but also the

appellants have failed to furnish the reasons as to why the relief sought

by the plaintiff should not be granted.

50. But for denying entire claim and conveniently disputing the contents

of mail dated 30th March, 2024, there is no reason set out by the

appellants based on either pleadings or documentary evidence to infer

that the suit is required to be decided only after recording the evidence

i.e., complete trial.

xxx xxx xxx

53. It was expected of the appellants not only to explain such denial but

also to put forth their case in the written statement so also in the reply to

the application for summary judgment. It is worth to mention here that, it

is upon oral assessment of the pleadings of the rival parties, it is for the

Court to dispense with the proof of the document.

54. The appellants have failed to conduct themselves in accordance with

the provisions of Order VIII Rule 3A as well as Order XI Rule 4. In such

an eventuality, the Commercial Court cannot be inferred to have

conducted itself contrary to the aforesaid provisions in the matter of

decreeing the suit.

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 11 of 19

55. In the aforesaid background, what is required to be appreciated is a

summary judgment can be delivered, in case, it is noticed that the

appellants–defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending

the claim put forth by the plaintiff–respondent.

xxx xxx xxx

59. In such an eventuality, the learned Commercial Court, in our

opinion, was justified in proceedings against the appellants to infer that

the appellants-defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending

the claim. Such opinion has been formed by the learned Commercial

Court, having regard to the replies submitted by the appellants under

sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order XIII-A.

xxx xxx xxx

62. If we consider both these mails, there is a reason to believe that the

appellants cannot, in real terms, dispute the contents of the said email,

having accepted that such e-mail was issued and is in the possession of

both the parties to the suit. The contents of these mails can be inferred to

be establishing the case of the plaintiff, if are read and appreciated in the

light of other documents and rival pleadings.

63. Though the appellants-defendants in the reply to the application for

summary judgment have pleaded that the contents of the material can be

proved through recording of evidence, however, if the pleadings of the

plaintiff, the pleadings in the written statement, the contents of the emails

referred above and that of plea raised in the application for summary

judgment and reply thereto, sufficiently establishes and as rightly so

inferred by the learned Commercial Court, that the appellants-

defendants had no prospect of successfully defending the claim…”

25. The ratio laid down by the learned Division Bench in M/s . Mapele

Engineers (supra) after a thorough and minute examination of the

provisions of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by

the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order VIII Rule 3A of the

CPC, clearly postulate as to what are the various essential factors required

to be stated by a defendant in the Written Statement and while replying to

the application under Order XIIIA of the CPC and the effect thereto in the

absence of such essential and crucial defence. In the present case, the

situation is rather precarious, in that, the defendants have neither filed the

Written Statement nor the reply to the application under consideration.

Thus, leaving no choice other than to deem that the facts narrated in the

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 12 of 19

plaint as well as the present application, are admitted. Ergo, the defendants

have failed to furnish any reason whatsoever, as to why the relief sought by

the plaintiffs, should not be granted.

26. Further, this Court in Sandisk LLC & Anr. vs. Memory World: 2018

SCC OnLine Del 11243, has observed the authority of Commercial Courts

to pass a summary judgment as under:-

“12. Order XIII- A of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and

Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 empowers this

Court to pass a summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it

appears that the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim

and there is no other compelling reason why claim should not be

disposed of.

13. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant has no real prospect of

defending the claim and no other compelling reason appears to this

Court why claim of the plaintiffs should not be disposed of. This is so

because the defendant has not filed its written statement despite entering

appearance on 27th April, 2018, as stated above, nor denied the

documents of the plaintiffs. Moreover, as the defendant is selling

counterfeit products bearing the plaintiffs' SanDisk trademark and

product packaging, it is a clear case of infringement of the plaintiffs’

registered trademark…”

27. This Court in the case of Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Kunwer

Sachdev & Anr.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764 has held as under:-

“90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment

procedure in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of

commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of

Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is

no longer the default procedure/norm.

91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes,

empowers the Court to grant a summary judgment against the defendant

where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of

successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason

why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral

evidence. The expression “real” directs the Court to examine whether

there is a “realistic” as opposed to “fanciful” prospects of success. This

Court is of the view that the expression “no genuine issue requiring a

trial” in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and “no other compelling

reason for trial” in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 13 of 19

mutandis. Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the

Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary

finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate,

more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just

result.

92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in

commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by

the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the

Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of

successfully defending the claim…”

[Emphasis Supplied]

28. Bearing the above trite proposition of law, it would be appropriate to

consider the facts emanating in the suit plaint and consider the application.

29. Plaintiff no.1 i.e., Bentley Systems INC. is a Delaware based

corporation with its principal office in Pennsylvania, USA while plaintiff

no.2 is the wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff no.1 with its registered

office at New Delhi. Plaintiffs claimed to be leading providers of

infrastructure software solutions to engineers, architects, geo- spatial

professionals, constructors etc. Plaintiff no.1 is the owner of copyright in

STAAD and SACS software program developed by it and marketed in

India by plaintiff no.2. It is stated that these software are one of the most

widely used structural analysis and design software products. It is by virtue

thereof that there is widespread and rampant piracy so far as the aforesaid

two software programs are concerned.

30. In order to protect its software programs and to reduce the risk of

piracy, the plaintiffs developed and implemented Phone Home Technology,

which verifies EULA-compliant use and records unauthorized usage as

“Infringement Hits”, each reflecting instances of pirated use. Before any

user can put to use the aforesaid two software program s, it is necessary for

such user to understand and accept the terms and conditions of the EULA.

The plaintiffs verify each of such infringement hits and take steps to

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 14 of 19

identify the infringer and establish contact with such infringer to redress the

losses incurred due to infringement.

31. It is claimed that the defendant no.1 was an Enterprise License

Service Customer of the plaintiffs from 31.05.2016 to 30.05.2017, whereby

the defendant no.1 company had purchased one (1) license of SACS in

2016, which expired in 2017. It is further stated that in July 2019, the

defendant no.1 reached out to one of the plaintiffs’ channel partners,

Aryatech Marine & Offshore Services (P) Ltd. (Delhi), to purchase

plaintiffs’ SACS software, pursuant to which several discussions took place

between the plaintiffs’ channel partner and the defendants, but no purchase

was made from the defendants’ end. Currently, the defendant no.1 has a

total of three (3) legal licenses (including add-ons and configurations) of

plaintiff no.1’s MicroStation software.

32. Sometime in August 2022, the plaintiffs came to know about the

defendant’s infringement of plaintiff no.1’s copyright when it used the

pirated/unauthorized version of STAAD.Pro and SACS on at least one

computer system each at Chengalpattu as well as Bengaluru offices.

Admittedly, the defendants had only three (3) licenses for MicroStation

software and no license for the aforesaid two software program s. Plaintiffs

sent a Legal Hold Notice on 11.10.2022 via e-mail calling upon defendants

to preserve all documentary, tangible and electronic material relating to

infringement and unauthorized use of the pirated versions of the aforesaid

softwares. One Mr. Joe Arokiaraj, IT head in defendant no.1 company

denied unauthorized usage of plaintiff’s software program s vide the e-mail

dated 17.10.2022.

33. In order to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the defendants, the

plaintiffs engaged services of an independent investigator namely, Mr.

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 15 of 19

Chandra Bhan Singh, who spoke to one Mr. Sudhir Mahalingapur,

Offshore Structural Engineer in the defendant no.1 company, on

20.10.2022, who admitted using the STAAD.Pro and SACS software

programs. In support of the said aspect, the Investigator filed his own

affidavit dated 24.01.2023 before this Court.

34. The plaintiffs instituted a pre-institution mediation bearing

Mediation Petition No.434/2022. On the last day of the mediation session

dated 19.01.2023, the defendants’ counsel sent an e-mail to the Mediation

Centre alleging that neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel ever sent any

details of evidence of infringement. It was also claimed that an internal

audit of the IT Systems located at Chennai and Bangalore revealed no

usage and installation of any unauthorized software of the plaintiffs. The

defendants also indicated its unwillingness to take the mediation process

forward. Thus, the mediation ended as ‘Not Settled’.

35. Plaintiffs, sometime in the month of January, 2023, conducted a

check on their infringement portal to assess the extent of unauthorized

usage and infringement activities by the defendants and found the

following infringement hits:-

36. Immediately, the plaintiffs filed the present suit and obtained an ex -

parte ad- interim injunction on 30.01.2023. Having regard to the fact of the

defendants’ habitual infringement, the plaintiffs again checked their

infringement portal in the month of May, 2024 where they found fresh

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 16 of 19

instances of infringement committed by the defendants, in contempt of the

ad-interim injunction order dated 30.01.2023 passed against them, with the

machine at SI. No.01 with the last date of infringement as 08.05.2024. The

same would be clear by the table reproduced hereinbelow:

37. Plaintiffs asserted that from the said infringement report coupled

with the investigations conducted by the plaintiff, it is clear that the

defendants have used pirated/unauthorized versions of plaintiff no.1’s

STAAD and SACS software programs. The report suggested unauthorized

use of SACS Connect Edition at least 338 times in the Bengaluru office till

08.05.2024 and similar unauthorized use of STAAD Foundation Advanced

Connect on one computer system at least three times till September, 2022

in Chengalpattu office.

38. Plaintiff asserted that the aforesaid usage being unauthorized and

pirated version of plaintiff’s software is in the knowledge of the defendants

and such usage is malafide .

39. It appears that the defendants rather than procuring genuine licenses

have used pirated/unauthorized versions of the said softwares. The

defendants have by such use, infringed plaintiff no.1’s copyright subsisting

in the software programs. Understandably, the unauthorized use without an

authorized license caused harm to the plaintiffs and correspondingly

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 17 of 19

resulted in unjust enrichment by the defendants from the work created out

of use of the unlicensed software programs.

40. Having regard to the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest

that the statement of facts and contentions urged by the plaintiffs are either

false or incorrect, it is deemed that the defendants have infringed the

copyright of the plaintiff no.1 in STAAD and SACS software programs.

Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the usage of the STAAD

and SACS software by the defendants in the Chengalpattu and Bangalore

office was either authorized or licensed by the plaintiffs, thus, such usage

would constitute infringement of the copyright of plaintiff no.1 in the said

softwares.

41. In view of the infringement as found above, the plaintiffs would be

entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on their behalf,

from directly or indirectly copying, reproducing, storing, installing and/or

using pirated/unlicensed software program(s) of plaintiff no.1 including but

not limited to SACS and STAAD and its various versions or any other

software programs developed by the plaintiffs in any manner that may

amount to infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyright subsisting in its

software programs and software related documentation.

42. So far as the issue of damages is concerned, Mr. Pravin Anand,

learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs had stated that the plaintiffs

would not press for damages, however, would press their claim on costs.

43. The plaintiffs have placed on record the statement of costs incurred

by the plaintiffs which are divided into three categories and for the sake of

convenience, are reproduced hereunder in a tabulated form:-

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 18 of 19

44. Having regard to the statement of costs filed by the plaintiffs which

appear to be reasonable, this Court directs that the plaintiffs shall be

entitled to a cost of Rs. 5,55,087/- on account of Court Fees, other expenses

CS(COMM) 49/2023 Page 19 of 19

incurred and the legal fee incurred. The deficit Court Fee, if any, be affixed

by the plaintiffs.

45. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, the present application

is allowed.

46. Accordingly, the suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and

against the defendants in terms of para 52(a) and (e) of the prayer clause of

the plaint. The plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,55,087/- as costs, to

be paid by the defendants jointly and severally.

47. Decree sheet be drawn up in terms thereof.

48. The present suit is hereby disposed of, alongwith the pending

applications.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

(JUDGE)

MARCH 10, 2026/yrj/rl