An amendment seeking to withdraw a prior admission regarding ownership in copyright is impermissible as it can cause irretrievable prejudice to the opposing party.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2(o), 13, 14, 17, 40, 41, and 52 - Application by defendant to amend the written statement to dispute ownership of copyright after admitting it initially - Court held that withdrawal of admission cannot be allowed by way of amendment, as it leads to irretrievable prejudice to plaintiffs and undermines their case - Amendments should clarify or explain, not entirely withdraw admissions. (Paras 1-17)

Facts of the case:
Defendant initially admitted copyright ownership of plaintiffs' works but sought to dispute this after the disclosure of Assignment Agreements in a sealed cover.

Findings of Court:
The amendment sought by the defendant to withdraw its admission of copyright ownership was denied, reinforcing the principle that categorical admissions cannot be retracted.

Issues: Whether an amendment can allow for withdrawing prior admissions regarding copyright ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an amendment aimed at withdrawing a prior admission of copyright ownership is impermissible and could cause prejudice to the plaintiff's case.

Result: Application for amendment dismissed.

Table of Content
1. defendant seeks to amend written statement. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendant's reliance on supreme court judgments. (Para 3 , 4)
3. plaintiff's opposition to withdrawal of admission. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's analysis of admission and amendment. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
5. supreme court principles regarding amendments. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. court dismisses amendment application. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

I.A. 8355/2022

1. This application has been filed by the defendant no. 1 seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that the ownership of the plaintiffs in the copyright is disputed.

2. In the application, it is explained that the occasion of filing of the amendment arose as the plaintiffs had filed certain agreements of assignment in its favour in a sealed cover. These agreements were disclosed to the defendants only pursuant to an order dated 14.01.2022 of this Court. The defendant no.1 is seeking to withdraw its admission to the fact of the plaintiffs being the owner of the copyright in their subject work, and to now dispute such ownership claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the Assignment Agreements, on the ground that the Assignment Agreements are not enforceable in law.

3. In support of the application, the learned senior counsel for the defendant no.1/applicant places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256, to submit that as the disclosure of the Assignment Agreements was made subsequent to the filing of the suit, amendment in the written statement ought to be allowed.

4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 498, he further submits that the test to be applied to an amendment in the Plaint, vis-a-vis to one made in a written statement is substantially different; it is more liberal in case of an amendment sought to be made in the written statement, inasmuch as, adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence can be allowed in a written statement as it does not amount to altering or substituting a new cause of action.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 278; Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 85; and Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 203, submits that an application seeking amendment in the written statement so as to amount a withdrawal of an earlier admission made, cannot be allowed. He submits that the defendant no.1 is not merely trying to explain an admission made in its written statement but is, in fact, wishing to withdraw the same.

6. He further submits that the plea of the defendant no.1 that the amendment was necessitated only upon the Assignment Agreements being disclosed to the defendant no. 1, is also incorrect, inasmuch as, these Assignment Agreements had been filed along with the Plaint, albeit in a sealed cover; the defendant no. 1 never sought an inspection of these documents prior to filing of the written statement. In fact, the defendant no.1 went ahead and in unequivocal terms accepted the copyright ownership of the plaintiffs in the work.

7. He submits that, therefore, the plea of the agreements being disclosed later is merely a ruse for supporting the withdrawal of the unequivocal admissions made by the defendant no.1 in its written statement.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.1, the copyright ownership of the plaintiffs in its work, which is the subject matter of the Plaint, was unequivocally admitted by the defendant no.1. In this regard the following paragraphs from the Plaint and the Written Statement may be usefully quoted:

PLAINT