The court emphasized the obligation of the appellant to pay royalties to the legal heirs of the deceased and the importance of a fair opportunity of hearing before passing an ex parte ad-interim order of injunction.

ORDER :

1. The appeal is at the instance of the defendant/respondent No. 3 in a suit filed by the elder son of Late Narayan Debnath claiming infringement of copyright of several works of his late father.

2. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the suit was filed with oblique motive just before the commencement of the International Kolkata Book Fair, 2022 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta and with a view to prevent the appellant from selling the books authored by Late Narayan Debnath. It is submitted that in the said proceeding an injunction application was moved ex parte on 24th February, 2022. The learned Trial Court, disregarding the fact that the appellant has the exclusive copyright in respect of several works of Late Narayan Debnath and all royalties payable to the Author were, in fact, paid by the publisher passed an ex parte order of injunction restraining the appellant from publishing and selling the works of Narayan Debnath, since deceased. It is further submitted that the said order was obtained by suppression of material facts. Mr. Ghosh has referred to the proceedings initiated by the present appellant before the learned Commercial Court at Alipore and submits that several orders passed in the said proceeding would show that the learned Court has recognized the right of the appellant to publish the works of Late Narayan Debnath. The learned Counsel has also raised the issue of maintainability of the suit before the learned Trial Court.

3. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 submits that since royalties were not paid to the son or other family members of Sri Narayan Debnath, since deceased, the suit was filed before the learned City Civil Court in which the said impugned order was passed.

4. Sri Narayan Debnath, the creator of Bantul the Great, Handa Bhonda, Nonte Fonte and several other Bengali comic strips, passed away on 18th January, 2022, was a legendary illustrator, cartoonist and writer. He never underestimated children and managed to make most of his creations timeless. In an interview to the Indian Express in 2013, Debnath said:

"I did not know what that entailed. I decided to fall back on my ability to observe things around me. The peculiarities of people around me. Their habits. Things that made them different, things that made them prototypes........The trick is to never underestimate children."

5. He was immensely popular and for generations of Bengalies, a Narayan Debnath comic strip exudes nostalgia. It is thus only natural that after his death there will be disputes regarding his copyright and royalty. There is huge demand for his books during the Book Fair as admitted on behalf of the publisher appellant. Even otherwise the entire pavilion of the Book Fair is decorated with his book comics. The appellant claims to have a copyright over and in respect of the original works of Late Narayan Debnath. The appellant cannot escape payment of royalties to the legal heirs of the said deceased before commercially exploiting such rights. The appellant although had disclosed a Will claimed to have been made and published by Sri Narayan Debnath during his lifetime, so long as the probate has not been granted by a competent Court, the money needs to be secured. There isa great possibility of huge sale of his works during the Book Fair and in the event the interest of the legal heirs of Sri Narayan Debnath is not protected, it may cause irreparable loss and prejudice.

6. We are not convinced that the plaintiff was not aware of the proceedings before the Commercial Bench at Alipore and also do not appreciate the timing of filing of the said suit before the Trial Court in which an application was moved ex-parte just before the commencement of the Book Fair in which the impugned order was passed. The conduct of the plaintiff cannot be said to be above board. The learned Trial Judge, in our view, ought not to