Skip to main content

Initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code not found to be a sufficient cause for not answering interrogatories

Corel Corporation vs. Mahabali Innovative Technologies Private Limited, CS (COMM) 711/2016

A suit was instituted for permanent injunction, against the Defendant to restrain the Defendant from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in various software programmes of the Plaintiff including the Corel DVD MovieFactory 7 software and for ancillary reliefs.

The Plaintiff claimed copyright in its computer software, namely “Corel DVD MovieFactory 7”. The case of the Plaintiff was that the said software had been licensed to the Defendant at a point of time when the Defendant was known as Monarch Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd and also that the Defendant was granted licenses from 28.11.2011 onwards on three occasions.

The further case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant had developed its own computer software by the name of “Twister SceneCut HD Pro”. Both the software of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendant were used for editing videographs. The case of the Plaintiff was that the defendant is embedding the Plaintiff’s software, namely “Corel DVD MovieFactory 7” in the Defendant’s own “Twister Scene Cut HD Pro” and selling the same to its customers.

Timeline:

14 May 2018: Vide order dated 14 May 2018, a decree for permanent injunction as sought was passed, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

11 March 2019: The Plaintiff then went on to file an application for discovery by interrogatories against the Defendant and the same was allowed.

1 July 2019: It was found that the Defendant had not complied with the aforementioned order and the Court was informed that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had been initiated against the Defendant.

24 July 2019: A case, therefore, of striking off of the defence of the Defendant to the claim of the Plaintiff for damages was made out and the defence of the Defendant to the claim of the plaintiff for damages was struck off.

In addition to the decree dated 14 May 2018, a decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, of recovery of a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards costs of the suit.

Team: Pravin Anand, Shantanu Sahay, Imon Roy and Aasish Somasi.

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Sep 02, 2026

Author: Lakshmidevi Somanath The law currently provides creators exclusive rights over their creation for a limited time, which gives a human inventor

From Innovation Incentives to Technology Diffusion – Protection of Intellectual Property Created by Agentic Artificial Intelligence
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 30, 2026

I. The Infringer’s Privacy Paradox The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) is built around a clear rule. Personal data

The DPDP Act’s Unanswered Question: Can Privacy Law Block a Software Piracy Investigation?
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 28, 2026

‘First published on India Business Law Journal’ By: Pravin Anand, Ajai Garg and Siddhant Chamola The Supreme Court of India’s Artificial Intelligence

Keeping the ‘judge’ in judgment
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 05, 2026

‘First published on Asia IP’ By: Safir Anand and Ritu Bhargava India has taken important steps forward in protecting consumers who use its digital

Misleading ads and dark patterns: Evolving jurisprudence in India