The plaintiff, as the holder of the exclusive license, was entitled to the benefits under the license dated 1 September 2021, and no other person could exercise the same right during the subsistence of the license.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

I.A. 15144/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

1. Defendant 3 is the author of a number of books, which form the subject matter of dispute in the present case. As the author of the books, copyright in the books vested with Defendant 3. Defendant 3 vide agreement dated 18 October 1979, granted the exclusive right to Defendant 1 to publish the books. The right was to continue during the legal term of the copyright in the books which, as Mr. Udit Chauhan acknowledges, would expire 60 years after the death of Defendant 3, who was still alive.

2. The following clauses of the said agreement may be reproduced thus:

1) The PUBLISHER shall publish the work and shall have the sole and exclusive right to do so during the legal term of copyright he shall also have the sole control of the paper, format, type, jacket, production, publication, advertising, price, sale and terms of the sale etc. of the works but the copyright apart from the publishing rights, shall remain vested in the AUTHOR.

***

10) Should the work become out of print and remain so for six months and should the PUBLISHER neglect to reprint within a period of twelve months after receipt of notice in writing from the AUTHOR then this AGREEMENT shall be cancelled and all rights in the work shall revert to the AUTHOR and the AUTHOR shall then be entitled or he shall exercise his rights within one month to purchase from the PUBLISHER all or any plates, moulds, engraving or the like produced specially for the work at the cost price less a reasonable amount for wear and tear.

3. On 3 August 2021, Defendant 3, through Counsel, addressed a legal notice to Defendant 1, alleging that Defendant 1 had breached the terms of the agreement dated 18 October 1979 and, therefore, calling upon Defendant 1 to (i) transfer to Defendant 3 the balance amount of royalty due to be paid to him, (ii) transfer, to Defendant 3, all remaining stocks of books/transcriptions/translations/softcopies or any other material in any form whatsoever, related to books originally authored or co-authored by Defendant 3 which were in the possession of Defendant 1 and (iii) cease and desist from publishing any books which were authored or co-authored by Defendant 3 including any abridgment or translation thereof.

4. Fifteen days' time was granted to Defendant 1 to comply with these directions.

5. Vide email dated 26 August 2021, Defendant 3, through Counsel, revoked the license agreement dated 18 October 1979 supra and, further, again requested Defendant 1 to comply with the requests already contained in the earlier notice dated 3 August 2021. A final opportunity, till 31 August 2021, was granted to Defendant 1 to do so.

6. The aspect of whether Defendant 1 did, or did not, comply with the said requirements, is not particular relevance to the dispute at hand.

7. Consequent to the above, on 1 September 2021, Defendant 3 executed an agreement with the plaintiff, granting the plaintiff exclusive license for the publication, distribution and selling of the following books, which were enlist in Annexure A to the said agreement (herein after "The Copyrighted books").

8. On 21 October 2021, Defendant 1 filed CS 8632/2021 before the Ludhiana District Court, seeking a declaration that the termination of the license agreement dated 18 October 1979 by the notice dated 26 August 2021 was bad in law and, further, seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 18 October 1979. Though the said suit continues to remain pending before the learned District Court, learned Counsel are ad idem that no interlocutory orders have been passed in the said suit, either staying the effect of the communication dated 26 August 2021 or otherwise.

9. In the interregnum, the plaintiff addressed a communication dated 5 August 2021, to Defendant 1, calling on Defendant 1 to c