The Karnataka High Court observed that an Ex-parte Order appointing the Court Commissioner for search and seizure of the business premises is necessary in IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) cases.

The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Sessions Judge, refusing to grant Ex-parte Order for the appointment of a Court Commissioner.

A Single Bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad enunciated, “If the ex-parte order is not passed, the respondents/defendants may likely to uninstall or remove the infringed version of the software from their machines, thereby the person tampering with the evidence of the actual usage of the software. It is not as much collecting the evidence but to preserve and protect the infringing evidence. Therefore, an ex parte order appointing the Court Commissioner for search and seizure of the business premises of the respondents/defendants is necessary.”

Advocate Angad Kamath represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Arun Kumar K. represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a Suit for perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendants, their agents, contractors, his employers, partners or any other person/entity claiming through or under the Defendants from directly or indirectly copying, sharing or using in any manner the confidential/proprietary information/material belonging to the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants and others to deliver up to the Plaintiff all copies of, and destroy any remaining physical and digital copies of the confidential/proprietary information/material belonging to the Plaintiff.

Along with the Plaint, the Plaintiff filed an Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) with a prayer to grant an ad-interim Order of ex-parte temporary injunction. The Trial Court issued an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction Order against the Defendants, till the next date of hearing. As far as appointment of Commissioner is concerned, the Trial Court refused to pass an ex-parte Order but only issued an emergent notice. Challenging this, the Plaintiff was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, clarified that in the intellectual property rights cases, the ex-parte Order of appointment of the Court Commissioner is to ensure that a surprise element remains intact, in the absence whereof the Respondents would easily be in a position to remove the infringing products when the Court Commissioner visits the premises of the Respondent.

The Court, therefore directed the Registry to transfer the Court Commissioner’s Report to the Trial Court.

“The trial court is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, deciding the legality and validity of the Court Commissioner’s report, after giving an opportunity to both parties”, it also ordered.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited v. Anirudh Putsala & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Angad Kamath and Ramya S.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Arun Kumar K., Advocates Rakshith Pai, and Vybhavashree S.

Click here to read/download the Judgment