In this civil suit for permanent injunction regarding copyright and patent infringement, the plaintiff failed to appear and counsel reported no instruction. The court dismissed the suit for default/non-prosecution.
Suit dismissed for default and non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:14.08.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S.No.297 of 2009
S.Paul Raj .. Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
Represented by its Managing director
Bombay House
24, Homi Mody Street, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001
2. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
Vice President and Head
of Global Government Industry Group,
No.17, Cathedral Road,
Chennai - 600 086 .. Defendants
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 & Section 62 of the copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their men servants, assigns or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the work titled "FLYGUARD" in respect of the invention of the Plaintiff under the name/title "e-Passport(Smartcard)" and also as "TCS e-Passport Solution" or such other name or title or any other work or works which are in any manner identical and similar with the copyright in the work on the plaintiff's invention / work "FLYGUARD"; Granting for Permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their men, servants assigns or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner INFRINGING the plaintiff's patent in the invention titled"FLYGUARD" in respect of the invention of the Plaintiff under the name/title "e-passport(Smartcard)" and also as "TCS e-Passport Solution" or such other name or title
2
which are in any manner identical and similar to the invention of the plaintiff's invention "FLYGUARD"; for directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs the entire material accumulated by the defendant in respect of "e-Passport(Smartcard)" and also as "TCS ePassport Solution" or such other name or title which are in any manner identical and similar to the invention of the plaintiff's invention "FLYGUARD", for destruction; for directing the defendants to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by its through the sale of the offending work bearing the offending title "ePassport(Smartcard)" and also as "TCS e-Passport Solution" or such other name or title or any other work or works which are in any manner identical and similar with the copyright in the work on the plaintiff's invention / work "FLYGUARD" and for costs.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Dharanidharan
for M/S.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan
For Defendants : Mr.Sundar Narayan
JUDGMENT
Mr.Dharanidharan, learned counsel, representing the counsel on
record for the sole Plaintiff and Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel on record for both the defendants are before this Commercial Division.
" In the above matter several attempts were made to contact the plaintiff who is ordinarily residing at Thirunelveli. The counsel made attempts to contact him and only after several months he had responded stating that he would be in Chennai on 2nd August 2018 and there again on 9th August 2018
3
The Counsel is unable to hold the brief without further instructions in the matter.
It is therefore prayed that the Counsel be relieved from the vakalath and the above Memo is recorded and thus render justices".
plaintiff submits that he is reporting 'NO INSTRUCTION'.
6.It is also submitted by learned counsel on both sides that
there is no dispute or disagreement regarding the jurisdiction of this Commercial Division as this lis pertains to copyright relatable to Biometrics in Passport. It is also submitted that in the light of these facts, lis qualifies as a Commercial Dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii)
4
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In the light of Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 'specified value' is not of relevance and this Commercial Division has jurisdiction under first proviso to Section 7 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is their further say.
In the light of the narrative supra, particularly trajectory of hearings i.e., continuous non-appearance of plaintiff, viewed in the context of the memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff and owing to learned counsel for plaintiff reporting 'No Instructions', this suit stands dismissed for default/Non-Prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.08.2018
gpa
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Index : Yes/No gpa
To
5
M.SUNDAR, J. kan/gpa
C.S.No.297 of 2009
14.08.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit should proceed given the plaintiff's counsel has reported no instruction due to the plaintiff's absence.
Whether the Commercial Division has jurisdiction over the commercial dispute between the parties.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
M Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
