JUDGMENT :- Sri S.K. Dutt, an advocate practising in this Court, has filed this suit purporting to be one under S. 13, Copyright Act, 1914. The plaintiff alleges that he is the author and sole owner of the copyright in the work entitled "The Indian Partnership Act by Mukerji and Dutt". This work, the plaintiff alleges, he published in the year 1934 in collaboration with Sir Manmotho Nath Mukerji, an ex-Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta and an ex-Law Member of the Government of India.

The plaintiff further alleges that the aforementioned book the Law of Partnership in India has earned a great reputation and it has had sales in the United States of America, in England and practically throughout this country. The plaintiffs case further is that defendant No. 2, namely, J.N. Bagga, published a work entitled "Law Book Companys Commentaries of Law and Practice of Partnership and Private Companies in India" in the year 1947. This rival publication, according to the plaintiff, contained numerous passages which had been pirated from the plaintiffs work. The said rival publication purports to be written by K.L. Gauba, Barrister-at-law, defendant No. 3. H.D. Suri, B.A.,LL.B., defendant No. 5, and S.K. Iyer, B.A.,B.L., defendant No. 4; the Law Book Company defendant No. 1, are the publishers of this work while defendant No. 2 is said to have had the book published for defendant No. 1, that is the Law Book Company. This book was published by the Law Book Company when it existed at Lahore. It may be noticed that the present location of this Company is at Allahabad.

2. The plaintiffs case further is that the defendants wrongfully infringed his copyright and that they did not refrain from discontinuing the sale of the infringed book even after notice had been served on them calling upon them to desist from such unlawful activity.

3. The plaintiff alleges that he got knowledge of his copyright having been infringed by the rival publication sometime in July 1948. By the suit the plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs :

(a) That an account of the profits be rendered or in the alternative damages be awarded to him - the plaintiff has tentatively valued this relief at Rs. 1,200/-.

(b) That an order for the delivering up of all the copies of the rival publication or such part or parts thereof as may be found to infringe the copyright of the plaintiffs publication be made and that such of the infringing copies as are in the possession, custody or control of the defendants, their servants or agents, together with any plate, block or blocks of such infringing work be ordered to be delivered up to the plaintiff - this relief the plaintiff values tentatively at Rs. 200/-.

(c) That a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants from continuing or repeating further or doing any act or acts to infringe or injure the plaintiffs copyright be granted this relief the plaintiff values at Rs. 100/-.

(d) That costs of this suit and such other relief as the Court may deem fit be allowed.

4. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 only and they filed a joint written statement. By this written statement the defendants did not admit the allegation of the plaintiff that he was the sole author of the book or that lie had a copyright in the same. The defendants denied that their book was published in 1947 for they said that it was published in 1946. The defendants also denied having infringed any copyright that may subsist in favour of the plaintiff in the book entitled "The Indian Partnership Act".

The defendants further alleged that their book contained much more material than was contained in the plaintiffs work. The defendants further denied that their publication contained numerous passages which could be said to have been pirated from the plaintiffs book. The defendants alleged in paragraph 14 of their written statement that their publication had a very good sale from the time of its publication and that when the plaintiff l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document