l'IIIil'I'l \I'll3l\l '3] l'Il'Il|l'il"Ill'1lI|l'I IIIIIIII ilirtlmu $1 I I':-In-um'-I Iuutna I-turns: 'Ir: sur-u-I-win-tn:-'----1 on Iuvvuruun -v- -Ir--tr'-1---1 -I-1r- -u-w-7-nu 'rm Iuur-nuunur-nIrIuvuI1 nlnvwun Ii IN THE HIGH CDURT 03' KARI-IFLTAKA, BANGALORE In DETEE THI5 % 2 EM.' GE' APRIL 2903 'I'HE HC5N"BLE MR. JUSTICE HJILLAPPA R..F.3\. No. BEBKZODU BEIYUEEN: Haj or. 336 B.5.Ka'§:ai:ipa%haia'r:., 553/1, 2'" Ramachandra Agrahara, I-Iyaora 5'30 05341. . . . APPELLNTI' E . K. .f;}L:.i1L:¢1._11t;z;,i.a:1;, my Sri R.Hu:calidha:a.n. A¢:i1.r.,] Al-ID: A..N.E}anga4dhara Shnstry, I-tajor, Sui 'Ji-:3.ya. L'4a.11.=.!.},1en.i:h},r P:2.1ka.se;.na.,- '75, III Black, Tribunal Ragara, Is 0 I I .l\.l'l my Sri S.Na.rayana.. Adv..1 '}_""|r-.i$ 153 'I? E. -F-i'i.uu-1 11312 OR AF l'!'|'Jl"f nnninniv flu' JVDIKI '5}! "M Iflf HI IV' 'III: 'IF&'U' W 4! If? the t.3-;:EdE..'l'._' dated 11.9.2000 pamwd in 0.5.}! . 1439195 by the I Mal. Dist. Judge, Mysore, dismissing than suit filo-zi W0 '1' R 1 of CIPC. ._ __--- -u. up. n--- -- -u-w- 'rt Iurlnv 'II IIU--lIII.I 'l'lIl1l\l'I I Ilfll I &\J'3l\I 'él I\lf"I\l'f\IH.I\f' I_'II\J'I'I fi'Q\Jl\II 'Jr I\fu\I'If\|HI[\II I-II\7rI ' IN! The respondent anfl the iaernad counsel
far the parties are present before the Court.
2.
‘!”!’L_
1.”-
yh
which raada em undar:-
ii’;
fiiil
After hearing both the parties,
this He-:1’ble C<:~1.1rt euqgeeted thug
the parties should explore the
Iaacordingiy, the counsel for both
part fiter uuly inf:-rrnim Lheir
respective client: felt the- the
following compromise will nerve
the intereate of the juetiee
better.
The raaynrMw’*”1t.-‘dafe*”ant her-ah”
re-e;eg:=_1sas that the p1e;inti£t’.s
f athe : ‘ e werk, as i 1: involves
t: rune leti on, inst ruct: ions and
drawings 1′: 9 carry out the
inatructiene faster and better.
(,/
ITIQFTI “Uni 3] I’1|l’II\lIil’\Il’II1ul1 IIIVIIII HIV’!-Ill 1: I I’:-uuru.-I–I I-Iuvwuu 1-Iv’:-In tn -‘Ir:-mu-1-Ar–1: cu-run vuvwurnnn ‘-1- –1–r’–1-wr- –ru- 1-ww-w-nu rt -Iur-nnuuuu-unruuuru III
Itivl
ivil
(vii:
{H
anjcya atiginality and hence will
qualify for aapyright protection.
The defendant further admits that
unwittiflglyt thfiffi hat been
1~r-.-Fv-°{M.ntama.~n+- AF ‘r\.’|nin’|–i”FF’n
-lucid-loin-finding?-Iv)-I’IF’i&l-I ‘I-I& rtlaidn D I h 1 Codi: I-If
cap tight in their work in as much
thy defendant ‘wozk publiahua the
ptotected.’work of the plaintiff.
Thy defandant hereby’ record: his
regret and apologies for the same.
The defundant today hereby in the
preaence of the cuurt, yaid the
plaintiffs counsel a. sum of Ra.
10,000!” only in. cash being the
total compansati-an for good will
and gesture. The plaintiff hereby
The defendant submits that there
are no infringing copies haing
Sfi d ii tr’ ” ”
1
‘+-
by tha plaintiff.
Thh dofandant will be free to
publish similar books by fining the
I //
V
sugary.-. syn uuruuuuruuruuru uucuu qnyuyuuu ‘yo -ya—-g.-.’.1..»1.’..-x …q.p.- qgqyggugu ‘pg .’.-..’.’.-..,.-..’.— g;.q.y.. qgqgggggu -.1. u’.-gggguu-…»-‘gym-. nu…-I; w.-ow-u t. u.—… u… -.. -.— -..——
JI-
translation thamselvaa but without
copying the plaintiff’s book.
3. The respondent who is present before
the Court admits the terma of comprumise and
its due execution.
4. Thn’1earnad ccunsol for the parties
JJ-
also submit thafxfiompromise may be recorded.
5. In View e:»f thin, the judgment and
dacrae passed by the trial Court in U.S.No.
1&9/1$9B stands modified in term» of the
campramime.
Eran up the decree accordingly.
sal-
pscr/– judge
