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
•
Oct 02, 2026

A traditional craft can travel far beyond the place that gave it its name. The harder question is whether its name, reputation and identity can travel

Who Owns a Tradition: Understanding Geographical Indications Through India’s Artisan Stories
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
•
Sep 29, 2026

A person’s identity was once understood as something inseparable from the person. In the digital economy, it can also become an asset: a name that

Right to Publicity in India: From Celebrity Image to AI-Generated Identity
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
•
Sep 25, 2026

India’s startup ecosystem is becoming increasingly innovation-led, and the country’s intellectual property numbers offer an interesting glimpse into

India’s IP Numbers Tell a Bigger Story  About Startup Founders in India
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
•
Sep 21, 2026

First published by Asialaw. By: Lakshmidevi Somanath The law currently provides creators exclusive rights over their creation for a limited time, which

From Innovation Incentives to Technology Diffusion: Protecting IP Created by Agentic AI