Back
High Court Of Delhi
P.N.KRISHNA MURTHY - Appellant
Versus
CO-OPERATIVE FOR AMERICAN RELIEF EVERYWHERE - Respondent
R.F.A. 313 of 1998
Decided On : 10/31/2000
Copyright Infringement - Ownership of Copyright - Indian Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 58
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a writer, filed two suits against defendants for copyright infringement of his storybook. The defendants claimed ownership of the copyright, but the court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he was the rightful copyright holder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was the copyright holder of the story and that the defendants had infringed the copyright by printing and publishing the book without authorization. The court also held that the defendants had intentionally not rendered the accounts relating to the printing and publication of the infringing books, leading to adverse inference against them.
Issues: Ownership of Copyright, Waiver of Copyright, Jurisdiction, Rendition of Accounts, Relief, Infringement of Copyright
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the ownership of the copyright based on the evidence and material on record, drawing adverse inference against the defendants for intentionally not rendering the accounts. The court also calculated damages based on the number of infringing copies and awarded interest on the compensation.
Final Decision: The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from printing and publishing the book, ordered the delivery of infringing copies and materials, and awarded damages to the plaintiff with interest.
( 1 ) THESE are two cross appeals filed against judgment and decree dated 4th May, 1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge. By the impugned judgment and decree the two suits of the plaintiff were decreed (one for injunction and the other for damages and rendition of accounts although in the cause title, reference is made to Suit No. 250 of 1990 only) in the following terms:
(1) Consequently, the plaintiff is hereby granted a decree restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright ownership of the plaintiff permanently in any manner.
(2) The defendant Nos. 1 to 6 shall hand over the copies of the infringing Malayalam Edition within two months from today to the plaintiff.
(3) The decree for Recovery or Rs. 2,31,000. 00 (Rs. two lakhs and thirty one thousand) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 alongwith costs of the suit is also passed with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% p. a. from the date of suit till date of realisation. No decree against defendant No. 6.
(4) No relief against defendant No. 6 and the case against defendant No. 6 shall be deemed to have been dismissed as no cause of action shown against defendant No. 6, so far damages and rendition of accounts is concerned. The defendant No. 6, will however deliver the copies lying at the press or elsewhere in the premises, to the plaintiff in respect of Malayalam Edition. The other defendant Nos. 1 to 5 shall also deliver the copies of infringing Malayalam Edition within two months as above.
( 2 ) APPEAL No. 313 of 1998 is filed by defendants 1 to 5. Defendant No. 1 is Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere Inc. (hereinafter referred to as CARE for short) and defendants 2 to 5 were its officials. Defendant No. 6 is the printer who is arrayed as respondent No. 6 in this appeal. Appeal No. 379 of 1998 is filed by Shri P. N. Krishnamurthy, who was the plaintiff in the two suits. He is not too happy with generic language and extent of the injunction order and wants injunction on more explicit and punctilious terms. He is also feeling restive about the quantum of damages granted to him which are much below his expectations and miles away from his percept.
( 3 ) SINCE plaintiff is appellant in one appeal and defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants in other appeal, in order to avoid any confusion, parties are referred to as plaintiff and care . The printer-M/s. Prasad Process (Private) Ltd. , who as defendant 6 in the suit is referred to as defendant No. 6 .
( 4 ) AFTER giving the background in which two appeals have come to be filed in this Court, it would be appropriate to narrate the apologue which have scripted the two suits filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is writer of a children s storybooks under his pseudonym Raj Krishan Murthy. He is the author of story titled lakshman Kills A Tiger with ownership of Copyright No. 4681/69 dated 21st March, 1969. He is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Children Are Precious C-1; Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, which firm undertakes the printing and production of the books of the plaintiff. CARE is an organisation incorporated in United States of America. It is interested in forwarding of overseas aids voluntarily. In India, it has its office Headquarters at B-28, Greater Kailash, New Delhi-48, and branches all over India.
( 5 ) CARE wanted to distribute the story - "lakshman Kills A Tiger" written by the plaintiff among children of various villages in the States in India, in their mid Day Meal Project . Story was to come in comic form. CARE, under license from the plaintiff, entered into a contract with M/s. Children Are Precious (hereinafter referred to as CAP, for short) for printing and publication of the said story in the form of cartoon booklet. As per mis contract, CAP were to print and publish the said comic book. About 41. 25 lakhs of the copies of the book were published upto August, 1970 in Hindi, Halbi, Kannada, English, Bengali, Gujrati, Marathi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
