Back
Refuses Injunction Against New Central Book Agency Over Copyright Claim
The has declined to grant an restraining from publishing two English grammar textbooks allegedly in breach of copyright. Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the Commercial Division, dismissed the application filed by Dr. Pares Chandra Das and his son Amitava Das, holding that they failed to establish a or in their favour.
A History of Inaction
The dispute traces back to
, when Dr. Das, the author, entered into publication agreements with the defendant for
"Applied English Grammar and Composition Anglo Bengali (For High Schools)"
and
"Beginner's Applied English Grammar, Composition & Translation"
. Both agreements were silent on their duration. The plaintiffs argued that under
, any assignment without a stated period is deemed to operate for five years, meaning the licenses expired in
respectively.
However, the Court observed that despite the alleged expiry, the plaintiffs took no action for over a decade.
"After
till
, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps by restraining the defendants for publishing, printing and marketing the said books. The plaintiffs allowed the defendants to continue with the work,"
the judgment stated.
The Co-Publishing Agreement and Its Implications
In , Dr. Das consented to a co-publishing agreement between the defendant and , ostensibly to facilitate publication during the Covid-19 pandemic. This agreement was for three years and expired on . The plaintiffs argued that with its expiry, the defendants had no authority to continue publication.
The defendants countered that the original publication agreements continued to govern the parties' relationship, and the co-publishing arrangement was merely a logistical tool. Crucially, Clause 16 of the co-publishing agreement preserved the royalty payments under the original agreements.
Justice Krishna Rao applied the principle of
under
, holding that the original agreements were not extinguished or substituted.
"If the parties intended to substitute or extinguish the publication agreements, there would have been no reason to preserve the Royalty obligations arising in the said agreements,"
the Court noted.
? Court Says No
The Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs would suffer . It pointed out that the plaintiffs had tolerated the defendant's publication for years and had only issued termination notices in , shortly before the co-publishing agreement ended. Moreover, the notices did not explicitly terminate the original agreements.
Additionally, the Court highlighted a procedural irregularity: Abhijit Das, whom the plaintiffs claimed was the copyright holder of one of the books, was not made a party to the suit, raising questions of .
Precedents Distinguished
The plaintiffs relied on judgments such as and . However, the Court found these cases factually distinguishable. In contrast, the defendants' reliance on and on was found appropriate.
Final Decision
"Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the plaintiffs failed to make out a
and
in favour of the plaintiffs. This Court also did not find that the plaintiffs will suffer any
and injury,"
Justice Krishna Rao concluded. Accordingly, G.A. (Com) No. 1 of 2023 was dismissed, allowing New Central Book Agency to continue publishing the disputed books pending trial.
