Indiamart claims Just Dial submitted false evidence in copyright infringement case, Bombay High Court seeks reply

The Bombay High Court on Friday sought a response from Just Dial Limited in an application filed by Indiamart Intermesh Ltd alleging that the former had filed false and fabricated documents in relation to an appeal filed in a copyright infringement case initiated by Indiamart. (Indiamart Intermesh Ltd v. JustDial Ltd Mumbai)..In the application, Indiamart claimed that the documents were filed by Just Dial without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which was a pre-condition for admission of any electronic records. .Just Dial also purportedly failed to give particulars of the manner in which the alleged documents were obtained and the devices involved in the production of that record. The documents also claimed that Indiamart was deleting the alleged data to defeat Just Dial's rights however no proof or substantial evidence was submitted with it to support their claim. The screen shots which were in those documents never existed on Just Dial's website during the pendency of any legal proceeding and seemed to have been captured from Google's web caches, the application stated..Alleging that Just Dial committed an offence under Section193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for furnishing false evidence, Indiamart in the present application sought for initiation of proceedings under Section 195 (contempt of lawful authority) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) with or without preliminary enquiry..A Bench of Justices SP Deshmukh and Abhay Ahuja directed Just Dial to file its response on the application and placed the matter for hearing on July 30, 2021. .The factual matrix leading to the application was as follows:Indiamart, was one of India's largest online business to business (B2B) marketplace and informational hub for small and medium enterprises. When Just Dial was about to launch its standalone B2B online marketplace, Indiamart visited the beta version of the website as a regular industry practice. It noted that the beta versions had engaged in en masse copying of proprietary and copyrighted material, thereby infringing the applicant's intellectual property rights. Accordingly, a copyright infringement suit was instituted in the Delhi High court against Just Dial and an ad-interim injunction was granted by the Court. .Just Dial purportedly approached Indiamart to discuss an amicable settlement, however, at no point during this discussion informed Indiamart of infringement of their rights. An application for mediation of alleged 'inter-se' disputes was filed by Just Dial even though there were no disputes apart from what was raised by Indiamart in the suit and no dispute had been raised by way of legal notice or any form of authority..In December 2020, Just Dial filed a police complaint alleging commission of offences under Copyright Act, Trademarks Act, Information Technology Act and Indian Penal Code, and this was not disclosed in the application before the High Court, although no FIR was registered against it. Just Dial filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer (AO) under the IT Act for alleged data theft. While submitting the alleged documents with the application (which is also filed before the Bombay High Court) there was no certificate under Section 65B.Relying upon the AO's order, Just Dial called upon Indiamart to furnish certain documents to them for inspection. The police station issued two identical notices seeking certain information and documents to be provided by the applicant within 72 hours.Indiamart claimed that the documents sought were similar to the documents sought by Just Dial through their email..In the meantime, Just Dial launched its B2B website in breach of the order passed by the Delhi High Court. In view of this, a contempt petition was filed in which notice has been issued. .The AO's order was challenged before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), which stayed the proceedings and the order of the AO. The present appeal before the Bombay High Court was filed challenging the TDSAT's order. However, the High Court refused to intervene in TDSAT's order. Just Dial also filed an affidavit seeking urgent hearing claiming that Indiamart was deleting data required for investigation, without allegedly furnishing any documents in support of the claim..Indiamart claimed that the appeal and all other frivolous litigation were purely an afterthought and a counter blast to it suit before the Delhi High Court.It was claimed that Just Dial's conduct was a classic case of forum shopping, as it initiated proceedings before other forums when it did not get relief from one forum..The litigation takes place at a time when Reliance purchased 40% of Just Dial for Rs 3,597 crores with a remaining 26% to be picked through open offer..Senior Advocate Abad Ponda along with Advocate Naman Joshi and a team of lawyers from DSK Legal headed by Partner Vikrant Singh Negi represented Indiamart. Advocate Sanjay Jain appeared for Just Dial..[Read the order]