1

IN THE HON'BLE IDGH COURT OF DELID AT NEWDELID

(IPD JURISDICTION)
IA NO. 20640 OF 2023
IN
CS (COMM) NO. 914 OF 2018
LESS THAN EQUALS THREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. . ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PARAS MEHRA & ORS. . ...............DEFENDANTS

INDEX

1. Reply to Application Under O 13A CPC by the 2-48

Defendant no. 1 to 5 with affidavits.

Delhi

Dated: 09/01/2024

Through
Z1 L
RAVISH KUMAR GOYAL
tf

ADVOCATE
A-58/1, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
 2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEWDELID

(IPD JURISDICTION)
IA NO. 20640 OF 2023
IN
CS (COMM) NO. 914 OF 2018
LESS THAN EQUALS THREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. .... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
PARAS MEHRA & ORS. ................ DEFENDANTS

REPLY TO APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XIIIA CPC R/W SEC 151

CPC OF THE PLAINTIFF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY
DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO 5.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS, SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS:
1. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as it is clear from
LC report on comparison of source code of the website of the plaintiff
company and of the website of the contesting defendants, which LC report
clearly records that there is no copying of source code of the website of ,
plaintiff company into the source code of the website of the contesting
defendants. It was also recorded by the LC that the website of the plaintiff
company is also made using third party platforms, wherein coding -is being
done automatically by third party software / app. It is submitted that how
in that case the plaintiff can even claim any copyright in the website
allegedly run by it (when even the said material fact of website has been
created using third party tools/apps/software has not even been stated in
the plaint) and the plaintiff has not filed any objections to the report of the
LC.
 3

2. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as from the
averments made in the suit and also the documents filed with the plaint and
the present application, it is clear that there is no pleading or documents in
support of any literary, dramatic or musical work or even a computer
programme, which has copyright protection. The plaintiff case does not fall
in either of them. The entire construction of website of the plaintiff is from
open source, pre coded and freely available sources on the internet, which
are used by thousands of website hosted on servers. Hence, on this ground
alone the present application merits dismissal.
3. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as neither in the
plaint there is any pleadings nor any document is filed in support thereof
qua any literary, dramatic, or musical work, or of a computer programme
- which only have copyright protection as per settled point of law, and
when the entire construction of website of the plaintiff is from open source,
pre coded and freely available sources on the Internet, which are used by
thousands of website hosted and when there are no pleadings in the plaint
or any document is filed - as to what is the original work or copyright
material in the website of the plaintiff, and when legally it is settled point
of law that no document can be seen/considered/relied upon by the plaintiff
which is beyond the pleadings in the plaint. Hence, on this ground alone
the present application merits dismissal.
4. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the sole plaintiff
company (respondent no. 1 herein) failed to even plead, what is a copyright
 4

of the plaintiff company, how the plaintiff company created the copyright
work, how that alleged copyright work has vested in the plaintiff company,
there is not a whisper in the entire plaint. From the entire plaint, it is not
discernible that how the alleged copyright is vested in the plaintiff
company, and what is that copyright work, in which the plaintiff has alleged
copyright. As such the application under reply is liable to be dismissed.
5. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the website as a
whole is not subject to copyright protection, and there is no pleadings or
documents of the plaintiff to the effect that component of the website fall
within the ambit of literary, artistic, sound recording and Cinematograph
films under the Copyright Act, 1957 or what are the those components in
the website and what is the original work in that part of website which has
copyright protection.
6. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as there could not
be monopoly/exclusivity to be claimed on a single colour, as the plaintiffs'
claim over the exclusive right to use the main 7 colours is misplaced.
Firstly, the colours sought to be monopolized are primary colours and not
distinct colours which the plaintiffs have created using any creative or
artistic input. Allowing the plaintiffs to do so would deprive any other
person from using all 7 primary colours. Secondly, it has been held on
multiple occasions that no monopoly can be granted over a particular
colour. Hence on this ground alone the present application merits dismissal.
7. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as a competitor
 5

cannot be restrained from dealing with the customers of the other party and
a competitor is free to approach the prospective customers and canvass
about themselves; it is for the customers to decide with which one to choose
and no one can arrogate to itself the rights to deal with a customer
exclusively. Hence, on this ground alone the present application merits
dismissal.
8. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the author must
produce the material with exercise of his skill and judgment which may not
be creativity in the sense that it is novel or non-obvious but at the same
time it is not a product of merely labour and capital. It is further submitted
that the exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must
not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical
exercise. The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor filed any document to show
which part of website of the plaintiff is a result of skill, labour and capital
or which are the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity of the
plaintiff website which is not used by other websites on internet, and which
is exclusive work of the plaintiff. Hence, on this ground alone the present
application dismissal.
9. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the plaintiff is
aware that there is no copyright in the website of the plaintiff, therefore, no
suit was filed earlier, and the present case is nothing but an counterblast to
the notice of the defendant no. 1 and 2, wherein they sought immediate
removal of their copyrighted work, and damages for that, which is in the
form of various original articles of the defendant no. 1 and 2 which were
illegally and unauthorized published by the plaintiff on its website and it
 6

even changed the name of the author in the articles which were uploaded
on the website of the plaintiff.
10.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the plaintiff has
concealed the material facts from the court i.e. after 6th Feb 2016, Mr.
Manmeet Singh (who has filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company)
and defendant no. 1 and 2, the erstwhile shareholders of the plaintiff
decided to part ways at;t.d it was principally agreed that they would sell the
plaintiff company to third party, so that none of them would be left with
any interest in the plaintiff company. Therefore all the said sold the
shareholding to Mr. Amit Rustagi who was introduced by Sh. Manmeet
Singh. All three including Sh. Manmeet had signed the Share Purchase
Agreement with Mr. Amit Rustagi, and the company through which all the
transfer work has been completed i.e. IBAAdvisors, had sent three SPA's
to the email of all three. But however, the records of MCA showed that
Mr. Manmeet Singh never sold his shareholding in the MCA records and
never resigned actually from the directorship of the plaintiff company. This
fact clearly shows the fraudulent intention of Mr. Manmeet Singh as he
wanted to grab the plaintiff company and to commit fraud on the defendant
no. 1 and 2.
11.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the +

answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the plaintiff was

started, designed and made by the defendant no. 1 and 2. The current
landing page of the company was made by the defendant no. 1 ai:ld 2 and
Manmeet doesn't know anything about company registration and all.
Initially, the plaintiff's website was only confined to Company registration.
After that, Mr. Manmeet, defendant no. 1 and 2, all three had discussion
 7

and made the website live. Since the website was based on freely available
code, hence, it took less than a week to make the website live. Further, even
the design of the website was inspired by few other websites. The
wireframe structure and overall design of Quickcompany is very common
and followed by most of the websites. The comparison of Quickcompany
current page with other websites is made by us using screenshots
(Screenshots of basic design of Quickcompany with other websites is
already filed with List of documents filed by the answering defendants with
their WS and the same documents are relied upon with this reply by the
answering defendants for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition).
12.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the comparison
shows that Quickcompany basic structure is very common. Rather what the
design of Quickcompany is nothing but follow of best practices. Since,
these practices are common and hence, other websites looks similar to
Quickcompany.in which can be seen in attached documents with the WS.
Hence, when the whole design is common and a result of best practice and
freely available code (which is also known as source code) and the backend
code (Ruby on rails, Phusion passenger, MySQL etc) is taken from freely
available code on internet; the question of copyright does not arise at all.
13. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as molding freely
available tool as per needs does not create original content as per the
copyright act. It is pertinent to mention that most of the websites worked
on the same wireframes. Further, websites are only tool to create online
presence and nothing else. Every day lakhs of website are going live but
that does not mean that each of the website turns into business. This is
 8

because business runs through hard work and not through the websites. If
business could run just by the website, then every person would have
earned billions like amazon or flipkart. Hence, website is nothing but an
information board of the business and nothing else.
14. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the wireframe
structures of all websites are almost similar and there is nothing called
exclusive right. For example, different flats have almost same layout and
structure so will it means that he engineer has steal the FLAT MAP
document of other engineer? No, because it is all common and freely
available. Analysis of Rubeo.in wireframe with other websites has been
attached in documents already filed with the WS. One can see that hubco.in
layout is common and there is nothing novel or artistic or any new software
in it.
15.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as that the working
of hubco.in 1s extremely different than Quickcompany.in.
Quickcompany.in worked with more advanced technology, i.e. using the
search of 1.3 million companies, millions of directors, and millions of
registered and unregistered trademark. The Quickcompany.in is moreover
a product which offers various searches like trademark search, company
search, director search, design search etc. Around 90% of the web traffic
of the website was due to these searches only. The same fact is written on
quickcompany's about us page. On the page, the company claimed to make
Software's. On the other hands, the web pages of hubco.in are simple,
content-driven and static. The hubco.in does not use any search of
companies, directors etc. The website of hubco.in wasn't something
 9

peculiar or special rather it is a very simple website which is built using the
freely available code on the internet. The only common thing between
Quickcompany and Rubeo.in is that both the websites were based on freely
available code on the internet. The fact that Rubeo and Quickcompany both
based on Ruby on rails, both used Phusion passenger and both use Amazon
Services as claimed by the plaintiff is nothing new because it is all freely
available technology. Not only Quickcompany or Rubeo.in, rather lakhs of
websites are based on combination of three technologies. Hence, there is
nothing exclusive. Mere molding of freely available code according to his
or her way does not confer original work within the meaning of copyright
act.
16. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the answering
Defendants as aforesaid have already described the differences about the
layout and wireframes between the Quickcompany and hubco.in. Now
hereby it is described the flow ofboth the website which is proving beyond
any doubt that both websites are completely different. The website flow of
Quickcompany and hubco.in is explained as below:
I. Website flow of Quickcompany.in:
a) Quickcompany flow starts from name search. Anyone who wants to
register a company needs to enter his proposed company name in
search box and press enter.
b) In the next step, the search software checks the proposed name with
all the existing companies till date and also some prohibited words.
After that, it shows whether the name is available or not. The same
page also shows the available option to the person like XYZ Private
Limited, XYZ LLP or XYZ OPC Private Limited.
 10

c) Once the person selects the appropriate option, then the website
takes him to cart page.
d) After person fulfils all the details, the website talces him to payment
gateway page and it's done. (The Screenshot has been attached for
complete flow of Quickcompany.in)

II. The hubco.in website flow; Rubeo.in flow is very simple and static
and does not involve any hi-tech search. The complete flow is as
follows:
a) The first page is very simple. If anyone wants to register company,
then he needs to enter his name, mobile and email.
b) In the next step, website talces him to cart page, where person needs
to enter details. Generally, in 99% of the cases, the flow ends here
and our sales team calls on the captured lead to convert into the
potential order.
c) However, if the one percent proceed to enter details on the cart page,
then after that one needs to malce the payment and done. Hence, one
can see that our flow is very general and easy and very different from
the Quickcompany.in.(The Screenshot has been attached for
complete flow ofhubco.in).

17.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as Quickcompany
even markets itself by saying that it is a Godady (established internet
website for domain name) for company registration. (Company press
release attached with the list already filed by the answering defendants with
their WS wherein Company claimed to be Godady of Company
registration). Further, the design of Rubeo.in at the time of launch was very
 11

general and in conjunction with most of the websites. The comparison of

home page of hubco.in with other websites from bare perusal, this design,
look and feel everything was different. Hence, there is nothing common in
that with the plaintiff website. It is pertinent to mention here that the color
is freely available and cannot be claimed to be exclusive property by
anyone. However, the color ofhubco.in and Quickcompany.in is different.
18. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as it is apt saying
that the people can lie but circumstances cannot. It is submitted that the
Quickcompany website on 2nd May 2016 itself (as alleged in notice), came
to know about alleged copyright infringement, then why did the plaintiff
waited for 4 months to allegedly send the legal notice for copyright
infringement. Rather, the plaintiff also sent one legal notice to us on 10th
May 2016 (Email and Legal notice on 10th May 2016), which is
deliberately concealed by the plaintiff and was not filed with the suit,
wherein the plaintiff did not mention anywhere about copyright
infringement as the plaintiff is aware there is no copyright infringement
and there is nothing in the website of the plaintiff which falls in copyright
as alleged in the plaint. The present suit is false and filed with only motive
for causing harassment, for causing defamation and to blackmail the
answering defendants.
19.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as Rubeo.in is a
static and simple websites unlike Quickcompany which is more advanced.
Under Rubeo.in, if anyone wants to buy any service, then the same service
is selected and one can buy the same. The important point to note that only
service is selected which is a very easy and general code. However,
 12

Quickcompany is far better and advanced in this term. For example if

anybody wants to register trademark then the same is entered in trademark
search. Then the technology of Quickcompany.in verifies the proposed
trademark with all existing registered or unregistered trademark and then
it shows whether the same is available or not. If the same is available, then
product is finalized with the proposed name. For example If one want to
trademark 'XYZ', then under hubco.in one can only buy the service and
the team of defendant no. 5 do all the things manually, while in
Quickcompany.in, every manual thing is automated and done by the
system. Further, products are added in the cart as follows: Rubeo.in cart -
"Trademark Service";Quickcompany.in cart product selection - "XYZ
Trademark". Hence, one can see that there is a lot of difference in the back
end of the cart. Further, it is pertinent to mention that cart code under rails
is freely available on the internet.
20. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the footer of
Rubeo.in and Quickcompany.in is very different. The footer of hubco.in
contains information about the services offered while Quickcompany does
not had that feature. Rubeo.in has social media plugins on the footer while
Quickcompany.in had nothing. Further, the SSL license of both the website
is also different. It is further submitted that Rubeo.in had promo code
facility available while Quickcompany.in had no similar facility.
21. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as far as plaintiff is
concerned, it is submitted that one can see that the maximum coverage of
the page was due to general contact page information. Further, the fields
mentioned on the page are very general one like Name, Mobile, Email and
 13

address which is asked by most of the website and therefore, there is

nothing uncommon in this. (Copy of checkout pages which has similar
check fields are filed with the WS and relied upon in this reply).
22. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as from the
aforesaid it is clear that there is a fundamental difference between hubco
and Quickcompany, and even otherwise that issue requires trial. It is
pertinent to mention that all the aforesaid difference are on account of
different source code, database and design. Also, even ifit is admitted that
hubco.in was launched at that time, then also the Cart page are mostly
common and designed mostly in the same format in lot of other websites.
(Attached with the WS are the screenshot of Cart Pages which is relied
upon with this reply). Further, it is pertinent to mention that cart page is the
least important page of any website because it is seen to the public at large
only when someone enters into the site and select any product to purchase.
Further, the source code and MySQL are all available on the internet freely.
23. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as the plaintiff did
not attach any Cart page of hubco.in when it actually launched and went
live because it does not add to their fraudulent conspiracy. (Comparison
between current cart page of Rubeo.in and Quickcompany.in is attached
with the documents filed with the WS and relied upon in this reply). On a
prime a facie look, it is clearly evident that cart page of hubco and
Quickcompany.in is completely different and nowhere matches with each
other.
24.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
 14

answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as far as Ruby on

rails and Phusion Passenger is concerned. It is submitted Ruby on rails is
free ended technology available on the internet. Lakhs of website runs on
this technology. It is submitted the lead developer of defendant no. 5 i.e.
defendant no. 4 was trained and educated in this technology for more than
five years at the time of submission of written statement and hence, it was
natural for him to choose this technology. The plaintiff is not the creator
of the said technology; therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek any copyright in
that.
25.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as Phusion
Passenger is a web server used mostly in conjunction with ruby on rails
framework. Further, there is nothing uncommon in this. There are
thousands of websites which uses this combination. Few example of these
websites are as follows;
libertynews.com
Tullybuilding.com
scholastic.com
lemerbooks.com

(Technology details of all four websites are filed with the documents with
the WS and are relied upon with this reply).
26.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as in the making of
website of defendant no. 5, the technology used was freely available third
parties libraries which are often known as GEMS, therefore, the plaintiff
 15

cannot claim any copyright in that. The list of GEMS used in the defendant
no. 5 website are as follows:
1. Rails: Free and open source to develop web application.
11. Mysql2: Free and open source gem to connect rails with MySQL
database.
111. Sass-rails: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
1v. Uglifier: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
v. Coffee-rails: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
v1. Therubyracer: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
v11. Jquery-rails: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
v111. Turbolinks: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
ix. Jquery-turbolinks: Free and open source.
x. Jbuilder: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
x1. Sdoc: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
x11. Thor: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
x111. Byebug: free and open source gem to debug rails application.
xiv. Web-console: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
xv. Spring: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
xvt. Quiet_assets: Free and open source.
xv11. Dotenv-rails: Free and open source gem to set env variables in rails
application.
xv111. Activeadmin: Free and open source gem. It provides admin
functionality for websites.
xix. Active_admin_date time picker: Free and open source. Used with
active admin gem.
xx. Best_in_place: Free and open source.
xx1. Select2-rails: Free and open source.
xx11. Activeadmin-select2: Free and open source.
xx111. Ckeditor: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
 16

xx1v. Activeadmin-ckeditor: Free and open source. Comes with default

rails app.
xxv. Devise: Free and open source. Best authentication gem for rails
application.
xxv1. Omniauth: Free and open source to use with devise gem.
xxvn. Omniauth-google-oauth2: Free and open source to use with devise
gem.
xxvin. Omniauth-facebook: Free and open source to use with devise gem.
xxix. Pundit: Free and open source gem for authorization.
xxx. Paper_trail: Free and open source to keep track changes in database
tables.
xxx1. Acts-as-taggable: Free and open source to having tagging
functionality in website.
xxxn. Elasticsearch-rails: Free and open source to implement elastic search
in rails.
xxx111. Elasticsearch-model: Free and open source, used with elastic search
gem.
xxx1v. Faraday_middleware-aws-signers-v4: Free and open source.
xxxv. Friendly_id: Free and open source gem to generate user friendly ids
or unique ids.
xxxv1. Phusion Passenger: Free and open source gem to implement web
server in rails app.
xxxvn. Config: free and open source.
xxxv111. Redis-rails: Free and open source to connect rails with redis server
for caching.
xxx1x. Will_paginate: Free and open source to implement pagination in
rails model.
xl. Rails-jquery-autocomplete: Free and open source.
xli. Acts as follower.
 17

xlii. Andand: Free and open source.

xliii. Sendgrid: Ruby - free and open source to send email through send
grid.
xliv. Capistrano: Free and open source gem to deploy application to
server.
xlv. Capistrano-rails: Free and open source, used with Capistrano.
xlvi. Capistrano-passenger: Free and open source.
xlvii. Capistrano-rbenv: Free and open source.
xlviii. Capistrano-scm-gitcopy: Free and open source.
xlix. Capistrano-rbenv-vars: Free and open source.
1. Capistrano-sidekiq: Free and open source.
Ii. Bower-rails: Free and open source gem to integrate frontend
libraries in rails application.
Iii. jquery-datetimepicker-rails.
liii. Carrierwave: Free and open source, used for uploading files.
liv. Fog-aws: Free and open source. Comes with default rails app.
Iv. Carrierwave_ direct: Free and open source. Comes with default rails
app.
lvi. Mini_magick: Free .and open source to edit uploaded images.
lvii. Carrierwave_backgrounder: Free and open source.
lviii. Carrierwave-crop: Free and open source.
lix. Meta-tags: Free and open source to set metatags for SEO.
Ix. Impressionist: Free and open source for tracking user activity.
lxi. Ahoy_matey: Free and open source for unique user tracking.
lxii. Actionpack-action_caching: Free and open source to have action
caching in rails 4.
lxiii. Razorpay: Free and open source gem to connect razorpay payment
gateway.
 18

Ix.iv. Acts_as_shopping_cart: Free and open source gem to implement

basic shopping cart. (It is went into making of cart page of the
defendant no. 5 website)
lxv. Newrelic_rpm: Free and open source gem use new relic service in
rails application.
Sitemap_generator: Free and open source gem to generate site map
dynamically.
lxvii. Sidekiq: Free and open source gem to have background jobs.
lxviii. Sinatra: Free and open source, used with sidekiq.
Ix.ix. Sidekiq-cron: Free and open source, used with sidekiq to schedule
jobs.
lxx. Kaminari-bootstrap: Free and open source.
lxxi. Airbrake: Free and open source to integrate airbrake error
monitoring service.
lxxii. Remotipart: Free and open source.
lxxiii. File_validators: Free and open source.
lxxiv. Utf8-cleaner: Free and open source.
Ix.xv. Closure_tree: Free and open source.
lxxvi. Pdf-reader: Free and open source.
lxxvii. RubyXL: Free and open source.
lxxviii. Active_model_serializers: Free and open source.
Ix.xix. Cocoon: Free and open source.

One can see that from the aforesaid list, the defendant no. 5 complete
website is built on freely available technologies. The aforesaid
gems/technologies were used in making of different aspects of the
defendant no. 5 website. The plaintiff is neither the creator nor the holder
of copyright in any of the said technologies; therefore, the present suit was
gross abuse of process of law. The plaintiff has concealed all the said
 19

material facts from the court and the present application of the plaintiff is
liable to be dismissed.

27. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as all the technology
used in hubco.in is either freely available or is a paid technology, which is
of third party, and has no concern with the plaintiff, and hence, the question
of copyright violation does not arise at all. The sum of details is mentioned
hereunder:

1. Google Analytics: It is a free tool used for calculation total web traffic
on the website.
11. Google optimize 360: It is another free tool used in the defendant no. 5
website. (This is not a part ofQuickcompany technology)
111. Lead squared: Lead squared is a sale CRM used for managing leads.
This software is a paid one. (This is not a part of Quickcompany
technology).
1v. Facebook Domain Insights: This technology allows admins to see
facebook insights out of facebook to this domain. (This is not a part of
Quickcompany technology).
v. Turbo links: Turbo link is another free GEM available on the internet.
Further, this technology is not used by Quickcompany.in.
v1. Alexa Verify: it is a free service which is used to verify and analyze
ranking. It is also not used by Quickcompany.in.
v11. Google Tag Manager: A free service to update tags on the website.
v111. One signal: It is paid service used for push notification delivery
solution.
ix. reCAPTCHA: It is free service of google.
 20

x. Ruby on rails token: It is a free and open sourced framework that is

optimized for programmers. Anybody can use these technologies.
x1. Ruby on rails: It is a :framework and freely available on the internet.
xn. Viewpoint Meta/Iphone/Mobile Compatible/ Apple Mobile web App
Statu bar style/Mobile non scaleable content: All these services are
freely available on the internet. These services are used to make website
mobile :friendly.
x111. Cloudfront: Amazon cloud front is a free/paid service used for better
content delivery.
XIV. Gstatic Google Static content: It is free service.
xv. Jquery and bootstrap.js: It is a most common free GEM used in Ruby
on rails framework. It is a very important GEM and can be found in
most of the websites.
xvi. Doubleclick.net: Freely available service of the internet.
xV11. Godady: It is online service which is used to buy domain i.e. Rubeo.in.
xvin. Amazon: It is a paid service for hosting.
xix. SPF/Google apps: It is used for using Gmail services of google. It is
paid service.
xx. SSL by default/Comodo Positive SSL/Comodo PositiveSSL
wildcard/Comodo SSL: These are paid security licenses used for
website security.
xx1. Apache and Phusion passenger: It is a free and open source technology
used for web server application.
xxn. Other technology: All other technologies are open sourced and freely
available on the internet.

Further, if one has to do comparison between Quickcompany and

Hubco.in's technology then one can see a lot of difference. The detailed
difference is here below;
 21

Quickcompany.in Technology Rubeo.in Technology

Analytics and Tracking
Analytics and Tracking • Google Analytics
• Google Analytics • Google universal analytics
• Google universal analytics • Google Optimize 360
• New Relic • Lead squared
• Facebook domain insights
Widgets
Widgets • Turbolinks

• Google tag manager • Alexa verify

• Olark • Google tag manager

• Addthis • Onesignal
• reCAPTCHA

Framework Framework
• Ruby on rails token • Ruby on rails token
• Ruby on rails • Ruby on rails
Mobile
Mobile • Viewport meta
• Viewport meta • Apple mobile web app
• Apple mobile web clips status Bar style
Icon • !phone mobile compatible
• !phone mobile compatible • Mobile Non scalable
content
Content delivery Network
Content delivery Network • Cloudfront
• Cloudfront • Gstatic google static
content
Audio/video media
NA
• Youtube
J avasc;;ript Libraries
'4J~.
1

,,(• JQuery
• Typeahead.js J avascript Libraries
• Moment.js • JQuery
;
• Bloodhound Typeahead • Bootstrap.js
• Highcharts
• Facebook Graph API
 22

Advertising
• Doubleclick.Net
Hosting Providers
• Amazon
• Amazon Elastic
Beanstalk
Email Services
• Google Apps for business
• Mandrill
• SPF
SSL Certificate
• SSL by default
N ameserver Providers
• Amazon route 53
Web server
• Nginx
• Phusion passenger
Encoding
• UTF-8
CSS Media Queries
• Min width
• Max width
• Device width
Documentation information
• HTML5 Doctype
• X-UA-Compatible
• Google Chrome IE
Frame
• Javacript
• Meta description
• Canonical content tag
• Twitter cards
• Open graph protocol
• CSRF Token
• Cascading Style Sheets
• Windows 8 pinning
• lframe
Advertising
• Doubleclick.Net
Hosting Providers
• Amazon
Email Services
• Google Apps for business
• SPF
SSL Certificate
• SSL by default
• Comodo positiveSSL
• Comodo PositiveSSL
wildcard
• Comodo SSL
N ameserver Providers
• GodaddyDNS
Web server
• Apache
• Phusion passenger
Encoding
• UTF-8
NA
Documentation information
• HTML5 Doctype
• X-UA-Compatible
• Meta description
• Meta Keywords
• Open graph protocol
• Twitter card
• JSONLD
• Cascading style sheets
• CSRF Token
• Javascript
• Web app manifest
• HTML 5 Specific tags
• WAI-ARIA
 23

• HTML 5 Specific tags • X-XSS Protection

• Strict transport security • X-Frame options
• HSTS • Content type options
• Content type options • Strict Transport Security
• X-Frame Options • HSTS
• X-XSS Protection

After comparing the above technologies, one can witness a lot of different.
It is pertinent to mention that both the websites uses freely available
framework of Ruby on Rails but still, there are atleast 38 different
technologies used by both the websites. Further, some of these technologies
forms part of source code and hence, one can see that there is a lot of
difference between the source codes of both the websites. The above
difference and all the technology details have been obtained from
builtwith.com.

28. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as in regard to
shopping cart, it is the free shopping Cart GEM. It is submitted that
Shopping Cart is a popular GEM for implementing shopping cart in rails
application. It provides basic table structure for shopping cart following the
rails conventions. It is openly available under MIT license. It gives all the
permissions required for any use including commercial use. The license
can be seen at the following link;
https://github.com/crowdint/acts_as_shopping_cart/blob/master/LICENS
E.
29.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
 24

answering defendants to successfully defend the claim inasmuch as in

respect of averments of bug by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the 'feature'
may be a bug for Quickcompany.in but the same is just a common logic for
the answering defendants. Further, the defendants logic is also a very
common feature available in the entire industry. Other websites which also
provides the company and trademark registration does not allow multiple
company/product selection. The few market leaders which do not allow for
more than one single item of a type to be included in the cart are as follows;

a. Efiling.com (Cart page attached with the documents id~d with

the WS and relied upon herein)
b. Enterslice.com (Cart page attached with the documents filed
with the WS and relied upon herein)
c. Indiafilings (Cart page attached with the documents tilted with
the WS and relied upon herein)
d. Vakilsearch (Cart page attached with the documents filed with
the WS and relied upon herein)

All above website does not allow multiple product selection at once and so
is hubco.in. Therefore, it is not the bug that our cart does not allow multiple
selections rather a very common logic. Further, it is wrong to say that
plaintiff has fixed bug. It is pertinent to mention that website is just a
common mixture of freely available codes and few logics. Further, the
logics may be same or maybe different. For example; Rubeo.in logical flow
matches with the competitor India filings. The brief flow of both the
websites are as follows;

1. Indiafilings - Home page > Leadbox > Package selection > Payment -
11. Rubeo.in - Home page > Leadbox > Product auto selected> Payment
 25

One can see that flow ofhubco and Indiafilings.com is same but that does
not mean that hubco and Indiafilings runs on same source code.

30. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as on doing
comparing the home page ofhubco.in and Quickcompany.in. (The page of
hubco.in and Quickcompany.in are attached with the WS and relied
upon herein also) One can see the difference between both the website.
Both look very different from each other. A mere prima facie look
distinguishes between both the websites. Let us know discuss the
difference between the source code ofboth the existing cart page (Rubeo.in
Cart & Quickcompany cart attached);

1. General look and Feel: The existing cart page of Rubeo.in and
Quickcompany.in are completely different. The cart page of
Quickcompany is clearer while hubco cart page is very congested. A
mere look of both the websites is enough to understand the difference.
Further, the cart page of Quickcompany.in remained unchanged while
the hubco.in cart page has been changed almost completely.

11. Use of real name and pre filled information: Rubeo.in captures the
three basic details of the customer; Name, email and Mobile and hence,
always prefilled these three information in the cart and also use the
name on the order summary page. While Quickcompany.in does not
capture any customer detail except the proposed company name. Hence,
the cart of Quickcompany only uses proposed company name. It is
pertinent to mention that this being a fundamental difference arised only
because of different source code.
 26

111. Different product information page: The cart page of hubco.in has
completely different product information page. The product display
page is more details and properly place while in Quickcompany the
information is very loosely placed.

1v. Three steps cart display section: The cart page ofhubco.in shows all
the steps for cart payment. It also shows the current location of the
person while Quickcompany does not have that feature.

v. Cash wallet system: The cart page ofhubco.in also offers the 'hubco
cash wallet' wherein a person can use hubco cash to make payment for
any product/service on our website. This feature is not available in
Quickcompany.in. Further, this difference is also on account of different
source code.

v1. Promo Code Facility: Rubeo.in offers discount coupons on their

services and therefore coded promo code feature for the website. On the
other hand, Quickcompany cart has no such feature; therefore, this point
also proves that Rubeo.in has different source code.

vu. Different Order total: Rubeo.in cart shows the GST amount included
in the total amount while Quickcompany shows only total amount.
Further the look and presentation for the amount is altogether different
from Quickcompany.in

v111. Different URL: The URL of the hubco.in is simple and different from
Quickcompany.in. The URL of hubco 1.e.
https://vvww.hubco.in/cart/add/34 is very simple and allows one page
 27

payment. One page payment means after clicking on checkout button,

the payment details are taken on same page and not on any new page.
The URL of Quickcompany.in includes the name of the proposed
company. This is also a fundamental difference between hubco and
Quickcompany.

ix. No Full payment if order is above certain amount: Rubeo.in source

code takes full payment only if the total amount is less than Rs.14,000/-
. If the total payment is more than Rs.14,000/-then customer is required
to pay only Rs.4000/-. This is because our customer does not pay full
amount when the total amount is little big. This feature is not available
with Quickcompany.

For E.g. Suppose A customer books Nidhi Company registration ofRs.25,

000 on hubco.in. Then customer is required to pay only Rs.4,000 initially.
However, in Quickcompany.in, the customer needs to pay full Rs.25,000.
(Split of order screenshot is attached with the WS documents)

Therefore, it is clear that hubco.in source code is very different, original

and unique and allegations of plaintiff are just another dirty trick.

x. Two payment gateway: Rubeo.in cart page allows payment via two
payment gateways i.e. Razarpay and PayTM while Quickcompany has
only one payment gateway i.e. razarpay. Further, it is important to
mention that these payment gateways are third party paid service.

x1. Bifurcation of Amount: Rubeo.in cart page allows bifurcation of

amount into GST and non-taxable part while Quickcompany does not
show all these bifurcations.
 28

There can be various more difference apart from the above. Also, almost
all of the difference above shows that both the website has altogether
different source code. Hence, the question of same cart page or same source
code does not arise.

Further, with regard to the example given by Quickcompany.in, it is only

logic and thinking which may be different. The defendants know that their
Cart did not allow for more than single item of a type to be included in the
Cart. This is not a bug but a logical feature for them. In the defendant no.
5 entire history, no client has ever ordered for two company registration or
two software's or two GST registrations, hence why did we allow a person
to order two companies at once? The plaintiff has filed false and frivolous
suit just to cause irreparable injury and damage to the answering
defendants, and the present application which merits dismissal.

31. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim as stated earlier,
hubco.in is a very simple and static website and has no hi-tech and
advances technologies involved. Quickcompany.in has made some
searches of Company, trademarks and directors online. However, hubco.in
has no company search feature or trademark search feature available and
hence, the question of extracting data does not arise at all. It is a bald person
stealing a comb? Further, the data available with the Quickcompany is not
an exclusive data rather it is a scrapped data which is being taken
illegitimately by scrapping the government websites. Hence, whatever data
available with Quickcompany is actually the public data. Further, if we did
require any public data, then we can always take it from the ideal source
i.e. the government because that will be most authentic. Hence, there is no
 29

question of scraping the third party website for the public data, which is
available in public domain.
32. That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of
summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the claim, as per Alexa.com
results, Quickcompany is most similar to the websites which also derives
web traffic from searches of company, trademark, director etc. Further, as
per the alexa.com, top keywords for Quickcompany.in can also be seen.
Top keywords means what people search on google to get the
Quickcompany. The keyword generally reflects the main feature or target
audience of the website. As per the alexa, the similar companies to
Quickcompany are as follows;

Top Keywords for Top similar websites by

Quickcompany
Trademark search,
Quickcompany, Appario
retail Private Limited, Trade
mark search, Trademark
public search
audience
Indiancompany.info,
tofler.in, Corporatedir.com,
connect2india.com,
zaubacorp.com

It is pertinent to mention that all similar websites only offer company and
trademark searches and hence, one can see that Quickcompany is well
known only for searches. It is further important to mention that hubco.in
offers no searches of company, trademark etc.

(Alexa analysis of Quickcompany.in and screenshot of home page of

similar websites are also attached with documents filed with the WS and
relied upon here too)
 30

However, on the other hand, hubco.in is famous for Nidhi companies and
NBFC companies and GST. Rubeo.in provides the best consultancy on
Nidhi Company, GST and hence the maximum work of hubco.in is derived
from Nidhi Company and related products including GST. The similar
Alexa analysis of hubco.in is attached reproduced below:

Top Keywords for hubco.in Top similar websites by

audience
Consent letter for GS T, Gstbazar.com,
Rubeo, nidhi software, GST exportgenius.in,
registration, Nidhi Company howtoexportimport.com,
registration. knowyourgst.com, cybex.in

It is pertinent to mention that all websites similar to hubco.in offered GST

services or blog. Since, hubco main traffic is generated from content of
GST, hence, the answering defendants are more similar to GST blogging
websites. Further, it is important to note that hubco.in keywords and similar
websites are completely different from Quickcompany.in.

(Alexa analysis of Hubco.in and screenshot of home page of similar

websites are also attached with the WS and relied upon here too)

Alexa is an important analysis tool which is freely available on the internet.

Further, the plaintiff even referred Alexa in para 36 and hence, the analysis
of alexa is pertinent.

Hence, it is wrong to say that plaintiff right has been infringed and it is
harming plaintiff. It is further denied that hubco.in is built in shorter time.
It is more than enough time for the simple website like hubco.in. Further,
if the answering defendants had used the source code of the
Quickcompany.in, then hubco would also have company and trademark
 31

search on its website and their website would have been completely similar
to Quickcompany.in. The hubco.in has made so far because of the
continuous hard work of its team and not because of Quickcompany source
code. It is not the website that do business but the individuals. Each day
thousands of websites are added on the internet but not every website make
business. It is the individuals and the team that run business. Rubeo.in has
made its own brand which is being also registered with the trademark
authorities. The answering defendants created their website and wrote
valuable articles to solve queries of the public at large and thereby earned
the reputation. Rubeo.in has been created by honesty and not by stealing
anyone code. Further, the complete website of hubco.in is being made
using freely available code and licenses which is available on the internet
and hence, the question of copying the source code does not arise at all.

31. That the answering defendants are relying upon for this reply to
application u/o 13 A CPC, the documents which were filed with list of
documents by the defendants with their written statement and they are not
filed again to avoid duplication and multiplicity and the same may be read
with that this reply as documents filed with this reply.
32. That the answering defendants in view of the aforesaid disputed facts,
issues, points of law, reasons and documents submit that: there is real
prospect of the defendants to successfully defend the claim and no prospect
of the plaintiff in succeeding in the claim; all the aforesaid facts raises
issues of law and fact which are required to be framed in the present case
and the evidence is required in the present case on the aforesaid facts and
documents filed by the defendants with their WS; in the light of documents
and facts of the case and case of the defendants and report of the LC on
record, this court should not pronounce any summary judgement as the
plaintiff has no prospect of succeeding in the present suit from that.
 32

33. That further the present application merits dismissal as the plaintiff had
failed to comply with the rigour of Order 13 A CPC and failed to fulfil the
requisites and procedure prescribed therein, further the plaintiff had failed
to even plead how the case of the plaintiff can be decreed without trial in
view of the relief(s) sought in the plaint- no case has been made out in the
application much less how the answering defendants do not have prospect
of succeeding and compelling reasons, report of the LC and in view of the
issues and documents raised and filed in the present case.
34.That it is submitted that the source code of the website was given by
answering defendants as per order of this court dated 19/11/2018 when
neither at the time of giving direction in order dated 19/11/2018 for
comparison of source code submitted by concerned defendant with the
source code submitted by the plaintiff was objected by the plaintiff nor the
said order was challenged ever by the plaintiff, and at no point of time, in
between, the plaintiff had raised any apprehension till the LC report came
that the source code submitted by the answering defendants with the LC
could be tweaked or was allegedly tweaked or defendant no. 7 should be
directed to submit source code directly with the LC; but, the plaintiff itself
consented to it as no assail was laid to review/recall/challenge order dated
19/11/2018 by the plaintiff. However, as the report of the LC had gone
totally against the plaintiff and has brought the truth before the court that
the entire case of the plaintiff is false, farce and has no basis, and the entire
website of the answering defendants is different as its source code is totally
different from the plaintiff's website, and further the website of the plaintiff
has been made through using open source software (which in law does not
confer any right under copyright law on any person). Due to the LC Report
being totally against the plaintiff, as an afterthought, the plaintiff had
submitted before this court on 07/01/2020, first time, without filing any
objections with the LC report, that the source code which is stored with
 33

defendant number 7 shall also be matched with the website of the plaintiff,
once again, however, as the answering defendants have nothing to hide
they have never objected for the same and it is clear from order dated
07/01/2020. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold from the
same breath, and to reprobate and approbate at the same time. It is further
submitted that updating of the website in service industry is a continuous
process as on the daily basis/weekly/periodic basis the website of any
company has to be updated with relevant updates and information to keep
it alive in the business and also to cater to its needs - so as with the website
in question of answering defendants, and whenever any minor
information/detail is updated upon any website, which is a continuous
process for any website, and thereafter the website status is checked on its
server it would show that when it was last updated, as such the submissions
of the plaintiff in the application about the updating of the website in
question of the answering defendants after passing of order dated
06/12/2022 is completely preposterous and absurd. The website in question
of the answering defendants are updated on regular basis as aforesaid and
was updated before 17/12/2022 and after 15/12/2019 multiple times with
relevant updates and information, to keep it alive in the business and also
to cater to its needs as such the entire basis of the application of the plaintiff
is patently erroneous, absurd and fictitious. More so order dated
06/12/2022 of this court is clear that the source code comparison to be done
if the source code as on from date of filing of the suit till 14/02/2019 can
be accessed, i.e. if available on server and could be downloaded, there is
no question of deliberately changing any source code by the defendants as
alleged in the application under reply on 17/12/2022, and there was never
any direction to the defendants by the court not to update their website in
order dated 06/12/2022. The order dated 06/12/2022 was passed by this
court on the consent of the answering defendants as they did not oppose
 34

the application of the plaintiff; the answering defendants have nothing to

hide and had never copied any source code nor did any infringement of any
alleged copyright of the plaintiff. The order dated 06/12/2022 is clear that
the exercise of downloading would be done if the data as between the
relevant dates is available in the server and can be downloaded; and every
party to the suit was aware that data between the relevant dates could be or
could not be available on the server as the regular updating of any website
is done on routine basis. Further, never there was any order from this court
at any point of time that source code of the defendant's no. 5 website would
not be updated by the answering defendants.
35.That the present application is not maintainable and it is liable to be
dismissed as in the grounds raised in the application and other factual
delineation in it, there is no ground/reason has been stated on which the
present suit can be decreed under summary judgement by this court by
exercising power under Order 13 CPC. Further, para number 20 of the
present application clearly records and admits that one of the technology
used by the plaintiff company is a freely available third-party
software/technology to create source code for the plaintiff's website and
which is used by any other website in the industry i.e. Ruby on Rails,
therefore, there cannot be any copyright upon the software of third-party
in the plaintiff and as such not only the present application but the entire
suit of the plaintiff is misconceived, false and frivolous and without any
basis. The plaintiff cannot rely on the report of the LC in the piecemeal
dehors the context and it has to be seen in whole so as to see whether the
source code of the plaintiff's website is copied and which LC Report has
categorically and firmly answered it in the negative.
36.That the grounds raised in the application under reply in view of the relief
sought in the plaint and the contents of the WS raising substantial defence
in favour of the answering defendants, there is no singular ground made
 35

out in the application under reply to exercise power under Order 13A CPC
by this court to pass summary jutj.gment, in view of the plaint reading of
013A CPC and also in view of settled law in that regard, rather some of
the grounds mentioned in the application are not only irrelevant to
deciding the reliefs sought in the present case, but they are just raised to
create slant against the answering defendants and which have no relevance
and are also beyond pleadings in the plaint.
37.That the present application is not maintainable, and it is liable to be
dismissed as in the LC Report dated 05/01/2019 it was clearly stated that:
"Para 23A) ........... .
(v) After considering the above-mentioned comparison details, it appears that the
Defendant has started his 'coexchange' project considering Plaintiffs project as its base
for 'file naming' &'data base structure' or both Plaintiff and Defendant have used same
base for 'file naming' & 'data base structure'. It is further submitted that thereafter, the
Defendant has added lots of own code in the said project (base project).

Para23B) .................. .
(v) After considering the above-mentioned comparison details, it appears that 'cogst'
project of Defendant is different from Plaintiffs project.

Para23C) ................... .
(iv) After considering the above-mentioned comparison details, it appears that 'nsoft'
project of Defendant is different from Plaintiffs project.".

38.That in the present case there is no reason/ground to grant relief of

summary judgment to the plaintiff and there is a real prospect for the
answering defendants to successfully defend the allegations made by the
plaintiff as the alleged plea(s) of the plaintiff in the application that
Defendants 1-2 are repeated offenders and own diametrically opposing
statements in written statements filed with ICAI have nothing to do with
the present suit remotely or have any relevance whatsoever in the present
suit. It is important to clarify that the matter filed with ICAI, which
allegedly involves Defendants 1-2, is entirely unrelated to the present case
of copyright infringement. Additionally, the matter with ICAI does not
implicate Defendant no. 5, Website Rubeo.in, for any reason whatsoever.
 36

The plaintiffs attempt to intertwine the two matters is baseless and appears
to be a deliberate tactic to divert the court's attention from the true merits
of the present case. It is submitted that the plaintiffs claims lack merit and
are intended to mislead the court rather than having any significance
whatsoever.

REPLY ON MERITS:
1. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The answering defendants deny the Plaintiff's assertion
that the answering defendants admitted to any of the facts related to this
case. Throughout this legal process, Defendants 1-6 have consistently
contested all allegations made by the Plaintiff, including any allegation of
copyright infringement. At no point the answering defendants have
conceded to any wrongdoing, and the answering defendants submit their
innocence with regard to the Plaintiffs claims. It is submitted that contrary
to the Plaintiffs assertions, the report submitted by the Local
Commissioner does not contain any indication of copyright infringement
on the defendant's part. It is submitted that nowhere in the Local
Commissioner's findings is it mentioned that the source codes in question
have been infringed by Defendants 1-6. The report, a vital document in this
case, supports the position that the answering defendants had not violated
any copyright laws, as alleged by the Plaintiff. Also, they assert that Order
XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. The answering defendants diligently submitted all necessary
statements and evidence to this respectable court. The court through LC
has already conducted a comprehensive comparison of the codes in
question. Importantly, no findings have been returned against the
answering defendants based on this comparison. Given the exhaustive
analysis conducted by the LC and the contents of its report, there exists no
ground for the application of Order XIIIA. The Plaintiffs claim for
summary judgment on this basis lacks merit and should be rejected. The
contents of preliminary objections, submission and reasons may be read as
part and parcel of this para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

2. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. Contrary to the Plaintiffs assertions in the instant suit,
the defendants categorically deny any infringement of copyrights, breach
of confidential information/trade secrets, breach of non-disclosures, breach
 37

of non-compete agreements, or any other wrongdoing as alleged.

The defendants have consistently adhered to industry practices, legal
standards, and the terms of any alleged agreements in place. The
defendants have always provided all necessary information and evidence
to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter. The contents of
preliminary objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and
parcel of this para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

3. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto, and further it is denied that there is no need for
conducting a trial in this matter or that the answering defendants copied
the Plaintiff's source code in the website quickcompany.in, as alleged by
the plaintiff. Contrary to the Plaintiffs assertion, the report submitted by
the Local Commissioner does not support the claim of any source code
copying, as falsely alleged in the application under reply. The report, dated
05.01.2019, does not state that Defendants 1-6 copied the Plaintiffs source
code on the website quickcompany.in. The absence of any such
findings/observation in the report underscores the answering defendants'
case that there is no basis for the Plaintiff's allegations of copyright
infringement. In light of the above facts, the answering defendants submit
that a trial is necessary to thoroughly examine the alleged case of the
plaintiff by the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The
application under reply merits dismissal being without any basis and
meritless and sans any ground. The contents of preliminary objections,
submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this para, which
1s not repeated for the sake of brevity.

4. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The defendants categorically deny the allegations of the
plaintiff that presence of several bugs in the source code of
quickcompany.in that are also present in the source code of hubco.in.
The alleged bugs identified in both applications, as per the Local
Commissioner's findings, are consequences of third-party gems used in the
development process. These alleged bugs are not specific to the defendant's
source code but are inherent in the third-party software components
utilized by both parties. Therefore, attributing these alleged bugs solely to
the defendants' source code is misleading. The alleged bugs identified are
industry-standard issues related to the usage of common third-party
libraries and are not indicative of copyright infringement. Any alleged
identical or similar code identified between the applications is generic and
 38

does not amount to proprietary or copyright-protected material. It is

submitted that industry-standard practices, commonly used algorithms, and
generic code elements are shared knowledge within the software
development community. The alleged similarities are a result of standard
practices and do not constitute of copyright infringement by any stretch of
imagination. The application under reply merits dismissal being without
any basis and meritless and sans any ground. The contents of preliminary
objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this
para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

5. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The defendants deny the assertions made by the Plaintiff
that not adding more than product in cart is available in Rubeo.in is a bug.
The alleged bug in the hubco.in systems, as falsely so stated and described
in Annexure 20, pertains to the Shopping Cart functionality. Shopping Cart
is a feature in e-commerce websites, implemented using popular freely
available GEMs. This GEM provides a basic table structure following Rails
conventions, allowing the addition of products to a cart. Such
functionalities are standard and widely used in the industry, and the ability
to add multiple products to a cart is a common requirement. Implementing
features that enable users to add multiple products to their cart is not a bug
but a fundamental requirement of any e-commerce platform. Various
platforms, including the defendants, utilize industry-standard practices and
open-source libraries, such as acts_as_shopping_cart, which allow for the
implementation of these features. The answering defendants
implementation adheres to these industry standards and does not constitute
copyright infringement. As the online market evolves, customer
preferences and user experiences change. Platforms offering company and
trademark registration services have adapted to these changes, modifying
their cart structures to enhance user convenience and satisfaction. Such
adaptations are industry-driven and do not imply copying. The answering t
defendants platform's evolution to meet current market demands is a
testament to their commitment to providing a user-friendly experience. In
conclusion, the presence of standard e-commerce features, such as the
Shopping Cart functionality, does not serve as any copyright infringement,
as it is built by using third party app/software. The alleged bug by the
plaintiff is a mischaracterization of industry-standard practices, and the
defendants implementation aligns with widely accepted norms in the
online commerce sector. The contents of preliminary objections,
 39

submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this para, which
is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

6. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The answering defendants categorically deny the
allegation made by the plaintiff that the cart has been custom coded by the
plaintiff and the answering defendants used the same technique and
infringed the code. It is clear from the submissions of the plaintiff that the
alleged cart was created by the plaintiff by using third party software/app
and which generated the code, as such no copyright even otherwise can be
claimed by the plaintiff in it. The contents of preliminary objections,
submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this para, which
is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

7. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The defendants deny the false assertion that plaintiff has
made in this paragraph stating that defendant's invoice URL is made up of
using random characters same as of plaintiff invoice URL.
It is submitted that it is crucial to focus on the content and functionality of
the code in question. The invoice page's appearance, behavior, and
underlying functionalities on the Plaintiffs website significantly differ
from the answering defendants website. The layout, design, interactive
features, and data processing methods employed in the answering
defendants invoice page are distinct and unique to their application. These
differences highlight the originality and individuality of their development
efforts. The use of certain elements, such as the structure of invoice URLs,
is consistent with industry standards and best practices and the learning and
training the answering defendants received. These conventions ensure
uniformity and ease of use for users across various websites. Adhering to
industry standards does not equate to copyright infringement, as long as
the implementation and functionality remain distinct, as is the case with
the answering defendants invoice page. In summary, the alleged similarity
in the structure of the invoice URL is a reflection of industry norms and
shared knowledge within the software development community. However,
it is imperative to recognize that the content, design, and functionality of
the answering defendants invoice page substantially differ from the
Plaintiffs website. The contents of preliminary objections, submission and
reasons may be read as part and parcel of this para, which is not repeated
for the sake of brevity.
 40

8-13 That the contents of the corresponding paras of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The answering defendants categorically deny the
allegation of copying the use of ruby gem same as of plaintiff to generate
invoice or payment url as alleged or otherwise.
It is submitted that the Ruby language provides several standard functions
and preconfigured Gems that allow developers to generate random
characters. It is common practice within the software and website
development community to utilize these established resources to create
secure and unique URLs. The Plaintiff himself acknowledges the
availability of Gems like BCrypt, Sorcery, and others, which offer similar
functionalities. The decision to use SecureRandom.hexd(l 0) was based on
the answering defendants understanding of the requirements and the nature
of their project, further the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright on the third
party software/app/gems/project which is available by for free by anyone
for website development and it can be used by anyone and everyone.
Further, in software development, the choice of specific parameters, such
as the length of random characters, is often determined by project-specific
considerations, rather than a direct attempt to copy.
The Plaintiffs emphasis on the specific length of random characters (10
characters) does not imply exclusivity or uniqueness and the defendants
categorically denied the allegation of the plaintiff here that using the
specific length of the plaintiff code is eligible to prove that copying of code.
It is submitted that Developers have the flexibility to adjust the length of
random strings as per project requirements. It is submitted that the
answering defendants chose to use SecureRandom.hexd(l 0) as it aligned
with their application's architecture and security needs. The slight deviation
in character length (from 10 to 13) reflects the natural variability that can
occur based on project-specific considerations. In conclusion, the use of
SecureRandom.hexd(l 0) or similar functions, being general features
readily available within the Ruby language and Gems, cannot be deemed
copyright infringement and neither the plaintiff has any copyright in regard
thereof nor can claim any right thereto. The contents of preliminary
objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this
para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
14-19 That the contents of the corresponding paras are reiteration of the contents
of the WS and replication as such don't warrant any reply being matter of
record. However, it is submitted that
the answering defendants deny the plaintiff claim that defendants have
used the same gems in their code completely what plaintiff has used and
 41

making it the infringement of the source code.

It is submitted that the answering defendants use of Gems and technologies
was made based on industry standards, common practices, and popularly
used open-source resources within the Ruby community. The Gems used
in the answering defendants project are freely available, commonly used,
and widely recognized in the software development community. The
answering defendants adhered to best practices by utilizing well-
documented and reliable Gems to ensure the efficiency, security, and
functionality of their application - which are open source and third party
freely available Gems and the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright in that.
It is submitted that as developers, the answering defendants always opted
for open-source solutions, in line with the community-driven ethos of the
Ruby programming language. Their intention has always been to utilize
freely accessible resources while ensuring the quality and effectiveness of
our application. The answering defendants project's development has been
a continuous process, evolving over time based on their learning and
understanding of industry standards. As part of this evolution, the
answering defendants refined their choices and incorporated new
technologies and Gems that align with the dynamic nature of the software
development landscape. The answering defendants decisions are based on
the project's requirements, performance, and compatibility with the
existing architecture. In summary, their choice of Gems and technologies
is rooted in industry best practices, open-source principles, and the
evolving needs of their project. The answering defendants always been
committed to utilizing freely available resources and have adhered to
ethical practices in their software development endeavors. The contents of
preliminary objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and
parcel of this para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

20. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The answering defendants categorically deny that most
of the things in quickcompany and Hubco are same. It is submitted that
the content of the pages is different completely.
The answering defendants' website, hubco.in, is distinctly different from
quickcompany.in in terms of design, content, and the user experience
provided. In conclusion, the alleged similarities in URLs are a result of
adopting industry-standard practices and learning from common sources
within the Ruby community. The focus on customization and modification
of code, as stated in the WS, aligns with accepted practices in software
 42

development. The answering defendants submit that the differences in the

overall look, content, and functionality of their website refute any claim of
copying. The contents of preliminary objections, submission and reasons
may be read as part and parcel of this para, which is not repeated for the
sake of brevity.

21. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. It is denied that the answering defendants have no
prospect of success and defending the claim of the plaintiff. It is submitted
that the answering defendants have substantial defence. The contents of
preliminary objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and
parcel of this para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

22. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. The defendants deny the assertion that Defendants
reneged despite signing an in the Share Sale Agreement with the Plaintiff,
However it is submitted that non-compete is void as per law.
It is further submitted that it took defendant 1, 2 and 4 almost 3 to 4 months
to build their website that too a beta version because they weren't working
under it full time. There were more inclined towards teaching, writing and
CA firm. Hence, there is nothing uncommon in the development time as
claimed by plaintiff in the suit. Further, Defendants launched their website
properly on 13th February 2017, 6 days after their non-compete was over.
It is further submitted that the flow of Quickcompany.in and hubco.in is
completely different as aforesaid. The contents of preliminary objections,
submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this para, which
is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

23. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. It is denied that there was any breach of non-compete
agreement by the answering defendants. The contents of preliminary
objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this
para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

24. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. It is denied that there was any breach of ownership
clause by the answering defendants. The contents of preliminary
 43

objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this
para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

25-27 That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. It is denied that the report of the LC is against the
answering defendants. It is submitted that as far as the naming conventions
are concerned, Rubeo.in follows the right conventions. As per rails
convention controller names should be plural and model name should be
singular. (Link
https://guides.rubyonrails.org/v5 .2/action_controller_overview.html#cont
roller-naming-convention). The 4 files mentioned in report are correctly
named in defendant project. The cart controller name is fine in defendant
project as per convention in plural and in plaintiff it is not following
convention. Further, the controller files where naming conventions are
wrongly followed are as follows;
o Home Controller - It is named as home and not homes because it
renders the first page of website and as per need it just named home

o Hsn Code Controller - Same as above. Not present in plaintiff code

o Invoice Controller - Its generic

o Sac Code Controller - Same as above. Not present in plaintiff code.

Plaintiff and defendants have followed the basic database structure, and
there is no unique thing in any project naming. These names are generic in
nature and are very common. Most of the projects will take these names
itself if we research online or take any example for database design from
internet. Further, defendants and plaintiff had worked for two years so little
similarity is imperative and does not amount to copyright violation.
Further, whatever found identical or similar, is generic in nature. As per
need the answering defendants added new columns and the columns which
have same name are generic in nature like in article table having column
name, published date, author_id etc. The contents of preliminary
objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this
para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
28. That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied. It is wrong and denied that defendant no. 1 and 2 were held
 44

guilty of professional misconduct having bearing in the present suit in any

manner. It is wrong and denied that there was any diametrical opposite
statement in the WS by defendant no. 1 and 2. The contents of preliminary
objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and parcel of this
para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
29-32 That the contents of the corresponding para of the application are wrong
and denied in toto. It is denied that there was any change of source code by
the answering defendants or it proves that the answering defendants have
copied the source code of the plaintiff. The alleged violations of the non-
compete terms and share sale agreement have been refuted in the
defendants WS and the contents thereof are reaffirmed. The contents of
preliminary objections, submission and reasons may be read as part and
parcel of this para, which is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

PRAYER
That the application of the plaintiff under Order 13A CPC may be dismissed
with exemplary cost as the same being gross abuse of process o:(_law and the
same being most frivolous. &/
-ti'

' -x/" 5~ ..
Delhi
~ -~ ~"
IJ~~
;c1;-t:
~\~l\
Dated: 09/01/2024 WENDANT W. 1 TO 5
Through
~L-.L_j
RAVISH KUMAR GOYAL
ADVOCATE
A-58/1, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
 45

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEWDELHI

(IPD JURISDICTION)
IANO. 20640 OF 2023
IN
CS (COMM) NO. 914 OF 2018
LESS THAN EQUALS THREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. . ... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
PARAS MEHRA & ORS. . ...............DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Paras Mehra, S/o Santosh Kumar Mebra, aged about 32 Years, Rio WA
58A, Shakarpur New Delhi-110092, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the defendant no .1 in the above noted case and well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent
to swear this affidavit.
 46

IN THE HON'BLE IDGH COURT OF DELID AT NEWDELID

(IPD JURISDICTION)
IANO. 20640 OF 2023
IN
CS (COMM) NO. 914 OF 2018
LESS THAN EQUALS THREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. . ... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
PARAS MEHRA & ORS. ................DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Agam Gupta, S/o Sukhmal Chand Gupta, Aged about 31 Years, Rio
Flat 1503, Tower 10, Ace Parkway, Sector 150, Noida, UP 201310,
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the deponent is the defendant no. 2 in the above noted case and
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
competent to swear this affidavit.

✓ 2. That the contents of the reply to application under Order 13A CPC have
~~~een drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the facts narrated
~
j;;.~ ~ therein have been read over to me which are true and correct and the
' / / ~:~f?.~o
~~ same be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being
{ .I ~~~~¢'. reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
~~·-w"
~~ ~~ ~
~~.~~
~~ ~~ EPONENT
;.s-~ VERIFICATION:- 1 0 JAN 2024
 47

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEWDELHI

(IPD JURISDICTION)
IA NO. 20640 OF 2023
IN
CS (COMM) NO. 914 OF 2018
LESS THAN EQUALS THREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. . ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
PARAS MEHRA & ORS. . ............... DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Poonam Jain, W/o Sh. Vijender Kumar Jain, Aged about 55Years,
Rio F-63, Assotech Windsor Court, Sector 78, Noida 201305, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the deponent is the defendant no. 3 and also director of defendant
no. 5 in the above noted case, and is duly authorized by defendant no. 5
to act on its behalf and well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

~-~That the contents of the reply to application under Order 13A CPC have
4'~ been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the facts narrated
V ~":-"b-~'<,~e,ro therein have been read over to me which are true and correct and the
1/~'<,~~:'\~<_,.,'?
!::l'' ·5:-,~
same be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are,.not being
)~
'l,'v>'""~;::,'.:.>'0" reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. O--v-9'""
~ ,rbv \ o-
~,f~
1 O JAN 2024 DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
 48

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEWDELHI

(IPD JURISDICTION)
IA NO. 20640 OF 2023
IN
CS (COMM) NO. 914 OF 2018
LESS THAN EQUALS THREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. . ... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
PARAS MEHRA & ORS. . ...............DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sanyam Jain, S/o Sh. Vijender Kumar Jain, Aged about 33 Years,
Rio F-63, Assotech Windsor Court, Sector 78, Noida 201305, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the deponent is the defendant no. 4 in the above noted case and
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
competent to swear this affidavit.

~ 2. That the contents of the reply to application under Order 13A CPC have
been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the facts narrated
V ~ therein have been read over to me which are true and correct and the
✓ ~~~ same be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are ~ot being
.
41/
.
0'
#:vQ.; reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
~r~
~ ~~?
#.#
',.'i'
:-
-
~
~~

DEPONENT
, _>.1))1"

1 0 JAN 2024