S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

1. The Respondent-plaintiff filed RCS No. 3 of 2004, making a grievance about infringement of the Copy Right of its label at Annexure A to the plaint by the defendants by reproducing the same in material form and/or printing publishing or using the disputed labels. The plaintiff sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing the acts of infringement. The plaintiff also prayed for damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, so also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff for destruction the infringed labels. The plaintiff also complained about passing of infringement of trade-mark. However, subsequently restricted its case to the extent of infringement of copyright. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed First Appeal bearing No. 734 of 2012 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2014, set aside the decree of dismissal of suit and remitted the matter back for fresh trial. The plaintiff amended the plaint with regard to the averments about assignment of the copyright by the L.Rs. of the original author. After remand of the matter, the issues were recasted, opportunity was given to the parties to adduce the evidence. Thereafter, the District Judge-1 vide its judgment and decree dated 1.8.2014, decreed RCS No. 3 of 2004, thereby restrained defendants Nos.1 and 2 from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in artistic work in the labels Annexure A, A-1 and A-2 by reproducing the same by the labels Annexure E, F and J. The trial Court also directed the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each by way of damages for infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff in the labels Annexure A, A-1, A-2, so also directed defendants 1 and 2 to destroy the labels Annexure E,F and J. The defendant No. 1 has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present appeal.

2. Mr. V.J. Dixit, learned Senior counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 during the course of his erudite arguments canvassed following submissions:-

(i) The plaintiff can not be said to be the owner of the copyright. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove its ownership over the copyright. Even as per pleadings in para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff came with the case that under the contract for service with Mr. V.L. Kale of M/s. Shama Fine Arts, the label in question were printed for the first time on 18.5.1986. However, the said labels were already approved on 4.4.1986 by the Assistant Commissioner. The same is clear as per letter dated 4.4.1986 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Exh.133). The said letter clearly states that the new labels for the country liquor business of the plaintiff are approved subject to certain conditions. When the said labels were already approved prior to the contract of service between the plaintiff and Mr. V.L. Kale, it can not be said that Mr. V.L. Kale, is the author of the said labels, interalia, plaintiff can not claim ownership over the said labels. The learned senior counsel further submits that even the contract of service between the plaintiff and Mr. V.L. Kale, is not proved. No document of contract is placed on record. The consideration amount allegedly paid is also not stated. Even the affidavit filed by Mr. V.L. Kale, is not helpful to the plaintiff. The said affidavit was marked Exh.130 subject to objection. Said Mr. V.L. Kale, is not available for cross-examination. The contents of the affidavit are not proved. Even the letters Exhs.120 and 121 of Mr. V.L. Kale, are not helpful to the plaintiff. There is no pleading in respect of the said documents. The said documents were sought to be proved by witness Mr. Thorath. He is not the author of the said documents. He only identified the signatures. The contents are not proved.

(ii) Learned senior counsel further submits