Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Kapil Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Piyush Sharma - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 27 of 2021
Decided On : 09-02-2021
The court affirmed that authorship must be substantiated to establish copyright claims, and the exercise of discretion by lower courts in granting injunctions should not be interfered with unless arbitrary or unreasonable.
Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 17 - Appeal against an order restraining the publication and sale of certain books until the disposal of the suit - The District Judge granted a limited injunction due to lack of proof of authorship by defendants. (Paras 4-22)
(B) Interlocutory injunction - Appellate courts will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court unless it is exercised arbitrarily or against settled legal principles. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the District Judge's order from July 4, 2020, which restrained the appellants from publishing books until the suit's resolution, citing that the respondent was listed as the author in publications by a specific press.
Findings of Court:
A prima facie case was established in favor of the respondent for authorship rights, leading to an injunction against the appellants' actions regarding the specified books.
Issues: The main issues included the proof of authorship and the appropriateness of the restraining order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the lower court's exercise of discretion was reasonable and based on adequate grounds, affirming the need for proper authorship documentation under the Copyright Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed with liberty granted for expedited suit disposal.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 31380/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO (COMM) 27/2021 & CM APPL. 31381/2020
1. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 04th July, 2020 passed by the District Judge, North West, Delhi restraining the appellants herein from publishing and selling the books Pallav Series, Upvan Series, Bhasha Sanjeevani and Baal Sansar till the disposal of the suit being CS (Comm) No. 453/2019.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the District Judge has erred in his order because the respondent had not proved his rights as sole author in the books published by the appellants and that the District Judge has ignored the fact that the publication house has the copyright in every book published.
4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the learned District Judge has granted limited injunctions and given cogent reasons for the same. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:
"17. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has shown me the books in which name of Dr. Piyush Kumar Sharma has been mentioned as author and editor (Lekhak Avem Sampaadak). All these books were published by Mascot Press Pvt. Ltd. There is no written contract or document regarding the relations between the plaintiff and defendants. In such situation, the Court has to decide as to who is the owner of copy right in respect of the books in question.
18. As per Section 17 of The Copy Right Act, 1957, the author of a work shall be the first owner of copy right. It is not the case of defendants that plaintiff was in employment of defendant no.1 so as to bring his case within the four corners of Sec. 17 Proviso (c). Plaintiff has filed colored photocopy of starting page of 28 books. All the books mention the writer's name as Dr. Piyush Kumar Sharma i.e. plaintiff. This is not disputed by defendants.
19. Defendants have not placed on record any contract to show that their case falls under the provisos (a) to (e) to Section 17 of The Copy Right Act 1957. Section 57 of the Act grants special right to author of a work to claim authorship of the work even after assignment of his copy right.
20. It is not the case of the defendants that they are "public undertaking" and therefore, they are the first owner of the copy right as per Section 17 Proviso (d). Accordingly, a prima-facie case is disclosed in favour of the plaintiff that he has copy right of all the books of Pallav Series, Upvan Series, Bhasha Sanjeevni and Baal Sansaar. I am not inclined to pass any order in respect of book namely "Geet Tarang", "Moti Mere Akshar" and "Nanhi Duniya" because original books under these titles have not been placed on record.
21. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that Hema Sharma (defendant no.3) has not claimed having written any of these books in WS. Therefore, it was submitted that she cannot claim any copy right over these books. I have considered this submission also in some books, the name of Smt. Hema Sharma has been written as "sub-editor" and in some of the books, she has been designated as assistant writer. Therefore, it is clear that at the most she assisted the plaintiff in writing the book and she cannot claim any copy right over these books. I would further like to mention here that two books of "Bhasha Sanjeevini" of series 5 have been filed by the plaintiff. On first book, the name of plaintiff has been mentioned and name of Hema Sharma has been written as "Sahayak Lekhika". On the second book of "Bhasha Sanjeevini" series 5 simply the names of "Seema Ahuja" and "Hema Sharma" have been written in Hindi but nothing is mentioned as to whether they are writers of the books or not. Perusal of both the books would show that contents of both the books are same. Therefore, it is clear that the second book of Bhasha Sanjeevini, series 5 in which name of plaintiff has not been written as an author is direct infringement o
