Siemens wanted to find out whether its software was being used without a licence. What happened when a court-appointed team arrived at the premises turned a copyright dispute into something far more serious.
A software company goes to court and says another business is using its proprietary software without paying for it.
That, by itself, is nothing unusual.
Companies fight over software licences all the time. They fight over patents, trademarks, source code, databases and confidential information. Usually, the battle is about money: how much was lost, who owes what, and whether the defendant should be stopped from using the intellectual property.
But sometimes the real battle begins when the court says:/
"Let me see what is actually happening inside your office."
That is what happened in Nilesh Dhanukar v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. & Anr., decided by the Delhi High Court on 13 August 2026.
And the story is a good warning for every founder and director who thinks a court order is something that can be negotiated at the office door.
The First Move Was Siemens' Injunction
Siemens alleged that its proprietary NX software was being used without proper licences.
On 10 August 2023, the court passed an ex parte interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the allegedly pirated or unlicensed software.
But Siemens needed more than an order on paper.
It needed to know what was actually sitting inside the company's computers.
So the Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC to inspect the premises and identify and seize computer systems that were allegedly using the software.
This is an extremely important weapon in intellectual property litigation.
Imagine you believe a competitor is secretly using your software.
You cannot simply walk into its office and inspect every computer.
But if the court appoints a Local Commissioner, the situation changes completely.
The Commissioner is not your employee.
He is there because the Court wants to know what is happening.
Then Things Went Wrong
When the Commissioner and his team arrived, the situation allegedly became chaotic.
Around 50–60 employees surrounded and physically obstructed the team.
According to the findings recorded by the Court, computer equipment was moved to an adjoining property, including eight CPUs and three hard disks.
The Commissioner eventually could not complete the inspection and seizure ordered by the Court.
There was another important detail.
The High Court found that Dhanukar himself was personally involved.
He was present at the police station and later at the premises, where he imposed conditions on the Commissioner's access, including restrictions relating to personnel, electronic devices, photography, data collection and technical inspection.
In other words, this was no longer simply a dispute about whether Siemens' software had been used without permission.
The question had become:
What happens when someone interferes with the Court's attempt to find the evidence?
This Is Where the Real Legal Weapon Appeared
Siemens filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
For a business owner, this provision is worth remembering.
When a party deliberately disobeys an injunction, Rule 2A gives the court the power to take action for that disobedience, including detention in civil prison and other consequences.
Dhanukar eventually faced a finding of civil contempt.
The Trial Court initially sentenced him to two months in civil prison.
His defence before the High Court was interesting.
By then, the main suit had already been decreed on 19 February 2026.
So his argument was essentially this:
"The interim injunction is over. The suit has already been decided. Therefore, what is the point of continuing a Rule 2A proceeding?"
At first glance, that sounds logical.
It wasn't enough.
The High Court's Answer Was Brutally Simple
The Court made an important distinction.
A later decree does not travel backwards in time and erase something that happened earlier.
Suppose a court tells you on Monday:
"Do not use this software."
You disobey the order on Tuesday.
The case is finally decided in your favour on Friday.
You cannot then say:
"Since I ultimately won the case, my Tuesday conduct doesn't matter."
The Friday judgment does not make Tuesday's disobedience disappear.
That was essentially the point the High Court made.
The Rule 2A proceedings had already been filed in September 2023, while the interim injunction was still operating. Therefore, the later decree did not wipe out the alleged breach that had already occurred.
But There Is an Important Difference
This is where the judgment becomes useful for anyone involved in litigation.
Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Order XXI Rule 32 are not interchangeable.
If someone breaches an interim injunction while it is alive, the court can deal with that breach under Order XXXIX Rule 2A.
If someone later disobeys the final decree, the enforcement mechanism is generally Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.
Think of it this way.
The interim injunction says:
"Don't do this while the case is pending."
The final decree says:
"This is what you must ultimately do or stop doing."
They are different orders operating at different stages.
And winning the second stage does not erase what you did at the first.
But the Most Serious Part Was Not the Software
The High Court made a much broader observation about the Local Commissioner.
A Local Commissioner is effectively an extended arm of the Court—the Court's eyes and ears outside the courtroom.
That matters enormously in software and IP disputes.
Digital evidence is fragile.
A computer can be reformatted.
A hard disk can be removed.
Files can be deleted.
Software can be uninstalled.
Data can be moved somewhere else.
If a court-appointed Commissioner arrives to inspect the systems and is prevented from doing so, the damage is not limited to the plaintiff's case.
It interferes with the Court's ability to discover the truth.
That is why the Court treated the obstruction seriously.
The Apology Didn't Save Him
Dhanukar also offered an unconditional apology.
But the Court was not convinced.
The problem was not simply whether the words "I apologise" appeared on paper.
The Court looked at the conduct that preceded the apology and found that the apology did not demonstrate genuine remorse.
This is another lesson that business owners sometimes learn too late.
An apology in contempt proceedings is not a magic eraser.
If your conduct shows deliberate resistance to a court order, saying sorry after months of litigation may not be enough.
Courts look at timing, circumstances and conduct.
And This Is Where It Gets Very Real for Directors
There was another defence that did not work.
Dhanukar argued, in substance, that he should not be held personally responsible for what employees had allegedly done.
But the Court found personal involvement based on his own conduct and presence.
That distinction matters.
A director cannot necessarily say:
"I didn't personally move the computer. My employees did it."
If the evidence establishes that the director himself participated in, directed, facilitated or obstructed the execution of the court's order, the question becomes personal.
This wasn't simply vicarious liability for employees.
The Court found his own conduct sufficient to connect him to the obstruction.
The Court Still Reduced the Sentence
The High Court did not completely uphold the original punishment.
It maintained the finding of contempt and the need for civil imprisonment, but reduced the sentence from two months to one month.
The Court took into account his personal circumstances, including that he was a divorced parent caring for a minor child and the sole caregiver of his ailing father.
He was given 15 days to surrender at Central Jail, Tihar.
So the final result was unusual.
The Court essentially said:
The contempt finding stays. The punishment is reduced.
The Business Lesson
There is a temptation in commercial litigation to think only about the final result.
"Will I win the case?"
That is the wrong question when a court has already passed an interim order.
The better question is:
"What am I legally allowed to do today?"
If the answer is "nothing that violates the injunction," then that is the rule you live with until the court changes it.
You may believe the injunction is unfair.
You may believe the plaintiff is wrong.
You may even believe you will ultimately win the entire lawsuit.
None of that gives you permission to ignore the order.
If you disagree with the injunction, challenge it in court.
Do not create a second legal war by fighting the first one outside the courtroom.
There Is Also a Lesson for IP Owners
For companies that own valuable software, patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property, this case shows why interim relief and evidence preservation are so important.
Winning a final judgment three years later may be meaningless if the evidence has disappeared by then.
That is why a Local Commissioner can be such a powerful litigation tool.
It allows the court to preserve evidence before it can be altered, deleted or moved.
But it also creates an enormous responsibility for the defendant.
Once the court has ordered an inspection, obstructing the process can transform a dispute over intellectual property into a dispute with the judicial system itself.
And that is a much more dangerous fight.
You can fight a court order.
You can appeal it.
You can ask the court to modify it.
But while it exists, you ignore it at your own peril.
Because sometimes the biggest mistake in a commercial lawsuit is not losing the case.
It is forgetting that, somewhere in the middle of the commercial war, the Court has become part of the battlefield.Start writing here...