Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 450
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, JJ.
L. Prakasam Reddy and Others – Appellants
Versus
Paras Medical Publishers and Another – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 318 of 2023
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vivek Reddy, Preeti Kolluri.
For the Respondent: Vivek Jain.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement to demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting an injunction.
Headnote:
Copyright - Assignment Agreement - Copyright Act, 1957, Section 18(2), Section 19(3) - The court discussed the distinction between the assignment of a copyright and licence thereof, and the principles for grant of interlocutory injunction. It emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting an injunction. The court set aside the order of injunction due to the failure to demonstrate irreparable injury.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants appealed against the grant of a temporary injunction restraining them from printing, publishing, or distributing the eighth edition of the textbook 'Fundamentals of Medical Physiology'. The plaintiffs alleged breach of agreement and sought relief of permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, but failed to demonstrate irreparable injury. It set aside the order of injunction and directed the defendants to keep an account of the printed editions for periodic production before the Commercial Court.
Issues: The issues included whether the agreement was an assignment or a licence, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to rescind the agreement and seek the relief as sought in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting an injunction. It set aside the injunction due to the failure to demonstrate irreparable injury.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the order of injunction was set aside. The defendants were directed to keep an account of the printed editions for periodic production before the Commercial Court.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Commercial Court by which application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed and the appellants herein have been restrained from printing, publishing or distributing the eighth edition of the textbook, namely Fundamentals of Medical Physiology.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the appellant No. 1 is a retired professor in Physiology with 45 years of experience in teaching, researching and practical experience in Physiology. The appellant Nos. 1 to 5 are the authors of medical textbook, namely Fundamentals of Medical Physiology. The appellant No. 1 has authored eight editions of the text book based on his continued research.
3. On 30.01.1999, the appellant No. 1 entered into an agreement with the first respondent’s publishing house for publishing a medical textbook, namely Fundamentals of Medical Physiology - second edition. Between the years 1999 and 2015, appellant No. 1 published four editions of the medical textbook. Thereafter, the agreement was superseded and the appellants and the respondents entered into a fresh agreement on 18.04.2015 for publication of new edition of the medical textbook. The appellant Nos. 1 to 5 by a letter dated 16.11.2022 terminated the agreement inter-alia on the grounds that (a) respondents failed to make satisfactory efforts in publishing and marketing the textbook; (b) respondents failed to communicate the actual sales of the textbook and (c) respondents did not make any efforts to increase the availability of the textbook.
4. Thereafter, appellant Nos. 1 to 5 published eighth edition of the textbook in January, 2023 with the support of another publishing house, namely appellant No. 6.
5. Thereupon, the respondents filed a suit against the appellants seeking relief of permanent injunction, damages to the tune of Rs. 1 crore along with interest @ 18% and for the relief of rendition of accounts. Along with the plaint, the respondents filed an application seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from printing, marketing, distributing, reproducing, publishing or making alterations of the book, namely Fundamentals of Medical Physiology, Volumes I and II, in any manner.
6. The Commercial Court by an order dated 29.03.2023 inter-alia held that the assignment agreement was executed between the parties under which the respondents/plaintiffs had been paying royalty regularly to the appellant Nos. 1 to 5/defendant Nos. 1 to 5. It was further held that the validity of termination of the agreement can only be considered after trial and for the purposes of consideration of interlocutory application, it has been held that assignment of copyright in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs is absolute. It was further held that the defences like undue influence and misrepresentation in respect of agreement dated 18.04.2015 can be considered only during trial. Therefore, it was held that the respondents/plaintiffs have prima facie case. The Commercial Court further concluded that in case, the appellants/defendants are not restrained from any further publication of the book, the same shall result in huge loss to the respondents/plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Commercial Court allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction and restrained the appellants/defendants from printing, publishing, marketing or distributing or allowing any others on their instructions to print, market, publish, distribute or reprint of any of the previous editions, including the eighth edition of the book till disposal of the suit. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint pointed out that no challenge has been made to termination of agreement and therefore, the suit is prima facie barred under Order II
