1. Appeal against ad interim injunction in a copyright dispute over chapters in a Chemistry book. (Para 2 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3239
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Biswaroop Chowdhury, JJ
Gourdas Saha – Appellant
Versus
Dipankar Majumdar – Respondent
F.M.A. 25 of 2026|CAN 1 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Debnath Ghosh, Biswaroop Mukherjee, Abhik Chitta Kundu, Angshujit Ghosh
For the Respondents: Supratick Syamal, Arkarupa Roy
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Debnath Ghosh, Biswaroop Mukherjee, Abhik Chitta Kundu, Angshujit Ghosh
For the Respondents: Supratick Syamal, Arkarupa Roy
A suit based on copyright infringement is a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; filing it as a regular suit precludes the court from exercising jurisdiction. Additionally, an ex parte injunction is invalid without specific reasons recorded under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Jurisdiction - Commercial Dispute - A dispute arising out of copyright infringement falls within the definition of a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii). Where a suit involving intellectual property rights is filed as a regular civil suit instead of a commercial suit, the court acting as a regular civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant interim reliefs. (Para 16-21)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 3 - Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction - The proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 mandates the court to specifically record reasons why the object of the injunction would be defeated by delay. Failure to enumerate specific reasons for granting an ex parte order vitiates the injunction. (Para 22-24)
Issues: Whether the suit was a commercial dispute and whether the trial court correctly granted an ex parte ad interim injunction without recording sufficient reasons.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued suit was commercial and lacked reasons for ex parte injunction; respondent argued it was a declaratory suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Court found the suit involved a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act and lacked reasons for ex parte injunction. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. A suit for copyright infringement is a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Para 17 , 18 , 20 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside for lack of jurisdiction and failure to record reasons for ex parte injunction. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. Does a suit based on copyright infringement constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
Yes, a dispute arising out of intellectual property rights relating to copyright under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act is a commercial dispute. (Para 17 , 18 , 20 )
7. Is a court required to record reasons for granting an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC?
Yes, the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC mandates the court to record specific reasons why the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
8. Can a regular civil court entertain a suit that falls under the definition of a commercial dispute?
No, if a suit pertains to a commercial dispute as defined in the Commercial Courts Act, it must be filed before a designated commercial court. (Para 16 , 21 )
Present: The Hon‟be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon‟ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury
F.M.A. 25 of 2026
IA No: CAN 1 of 2025
Sri Gourdas Saha and another
Vs.
Sri Dipankar Majumdar
For the appellant : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee
Mr. Abhik Chitta Kundu
Mr. Angshujit Ghosh, Advs.
For the respondent : Mr. Supratick Syamal
Ms. Arkarupa Roy, Advs.
Heard on : 11.05.2026
Judgment on : 11.05.2026
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. The appeal is admitted to be heard on the grounds taken in the
memorandum of appeal and, on consent of the parties, is taken
up for hearing along with the application.
2
2. The moot contention raised by the appellants before this court is
twofold - first, the suit pertains to a commercial dispute as
contemplated in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 but has been
instituted as a regular civil suit; secondly, although the suit has
been couched as a declaratory suit simpliciter, the foundational
premise of the plaintiff‟s cause of action is infringement of the
alleged copyright of the plaintiff/respondent in respect of two
chapters of a Chemistry book published by the
defendants/appellants, which is a part of the West Bengal
Higher Secondary Council syllabus.
3. It is contended by learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants that not only was the suit required to be filed before a
designated commercial court, the trappings of a commercial
dispute had to be reflected in the plaint itself, since a
commercial suit has certain unique features which are absent in
a regular suit, such as the applicability of Section 12A of the
4. Secondly, the learned Single Judge, it is argued, did not record
any reason worth the name as to what was the compelling
urgency to grant ad interim injunction without giving notice to
3
the defendants, within the contemplation of the proviso to Order
XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. In support of such contention, learned senior counsel cites Time
City Infrastructure and Housing Limited vs. State of U.P. and
others reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 1674.
6. In the said judgment, the imperative nature of the proviso to
Order XXXIX Rule 3, mandating the court to give reason for
passing an ex parte ad interim order, was discussed at length by
considering several previous judgments on the self-same
proposition.
7. On the necessity of reasons, learned senior counsel also cites
Union of India and others vs. Essen Mining & Industries Limited
and another reported at (2005) 6 SCC 675.
8. By placing reliance on the relevant provisions of the Copyright
Act, 1957, learned senior counsel contends that the suit, as
framed, is steeped in the copyright claim made by the plaintiff,
although framed as an ordinary declaratory suit.
9. Even otherwise, it is submitted that since the alleged offending
book contains only two chapters purported to have been
authored by the plaintiff, the trial court could very well have
permitted the appellants to continue publishing the book by
4
deleting the said two offending chapters. Instead, the learned
Trial Judge restrained the appellants from publishing the said
book in its entirety without reflecting the name of the
plaintiff/respondent as author.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent argues
that in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, there is no specific
notification designating any commercial court but certain courts
have been earmarked for entertaining suits of a commercial
nature.
11. As such, there was no scope for the suit to be filed specifically in
the Commercial Division of the City Civil Court.
12. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the premise of the suit is
declaratory relief on the manuscript authored by the
plaintiff/respondent. Thus, the trappings of a commercial suit
are not applicable.
13. In addition, learned counsel submits that there was no
agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties
to bring the suit within the purview of a “commercial dispute” as
stipulated in the 2015 Act.
14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/r
