Delhi District Court
Smt. Juhi Gupta vs Mr. Munesh Chandra Trivedi on 19 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF REETESH SINGH,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (NORTH-EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No.- 214/09
Date of institution of the case : 25.03.2009
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 29.08.2011
Date on which Judgment was pronounced : 19.10.2011
Unique ID No. 02402C0094172009
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Smt. Juhi Gupta,
Prop. Of M/s Shubham Publications,
A-41/2, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.
....Plaintiff.
Versus
1.Mr. Munesh Chandra Trivedi, Asst. Professor in Institute of Management Studies, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Dr. N.N. Jani, Professor and Director, Kadi Sarva Vishwavidhyalya, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat.
3. Dr. S.S. Saragdevot, Director (DCS & IT), J.N.R. Rajsthan Vidhyapeeth University, Udaipur, Rajsthan.
4. M/s Khanna Book Publishing Co. (P) Ltd.
1694-5, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006.
Through its Directors.
......Defendants.
CS No.214/2009 Page No. 1 of 7 Judgment:
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.2,25,000/-
from the defendants as damages along with decree for permanent and mandatory injunction.
2. Case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Shubham Publications and is engaged in the business of publishing of books in the field of education. Plaintiff claims to be enjoying a good reputation in the market. It is averred that during the course of its business the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff with a request of publishing the book written by him by the name "Artificial Intelligence". Plaintiff accepted the proposal of defendant no.1 and entered into an agreement on 01.12.2006. The terms of the agreement were reduced in writing on 27.01.2007 as per which the plaintiff was obliged to make one time payment of Rs.12,000/- to the defendant no.1 for writing the complete book in consideration, the defendant no.1 assigned the copy right of his book in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed that in case the plaintiff desired the defendant no.1 to revise the book in future, the same would be subject to terms and conditions which could be mutually agreed upon between the parties.
3. It is averred that the plaintiff paid Rs.12,000/- to the defendant no.1 vide cheque no. 980413 in December 2006 before the launch of the book. It is averred that since the first edition of the book which was published and distributed in the market contained certain mistakes and required addition/ modifications, a second edition was launched in the market after rectifying the mistakes and carrying out CS No.214/2009 Page No. 2 of 7 revision with the consent of the defendant no.1. It is further averred that name of Ms. Sharbani Bhattacharya was added to the publication as contributory writer apart from defendant no.1. It is averred that the book did good business and generated revenue to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-.
4. It is averred that after the second revised edition for the session 2008-2009 was agreed, defendant no. 1 was paid Rs.10,000/- on 28.03.2007 vide cheque no. 984028 and the other author of the book was also given compensation. It is averred that the second edition also did well in the market. However the plaintiff was shocked to find a book in the market on 17.02.2009 written by defendant no.1 jointly with defendant no.2 and 3 and published by defendant no.4. Perusal of this book revealed that the same was identical in all aspects when compared with the book written by defendant no.1 for the plaintiff. It is averred that the said book was also having a similar name and was titled as "A Classical Approach to Artificial Intelligence" and the words artificial intelligence on the cover of this book were in much larger text so as to attract attention of the customers in order to bear resemblance to the book "Artificial Intelligence" published by the plaintiff.
5. It is averred that plaintiff the defendant no.1 had assigned his copy right in the book in favour of the plaintiff and by publishing an identical book with a nearby identical name, defendant had violated the copy right which vested with the plaintiff. It is averred that despite repeated requests defendants did not withdraw their offending book from the market and continued to infringe the copyright of the plaintiff. Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 19.02.2009 calling upon the defendants CS No.214/2009 Page No. 3 of 7 to withdraw the books from the market but they failed to comply with the same. Plaintiff claims to have suffered a loss of Rs.2,25,000/- due to the acts on the part of the defendants who copied book of the plaintiff and encashed its popularity.
6. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants vide order dated 28.03.2009. Defendants entered into appearance through counsel on 13.05.2009 and written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.4 on 23.05.2009. Thereafter, written statement was filed by defendant no.1 on 26.05.2009. On 14.09.2009 counsel for the defendants made a statement that defendant no. 2 and 3 would adopt the written statement of defendant no.1. The suit was thereafter adjourned from time to time and since 07.07.2010 none has been appearing on behalf of the defendants. On 15.03.2011 it was noted that none had appeared on behalf of defendants on 07.07.2010, 23.09.2010, 29.11.2010 and 15.03.2011. Matter was passed over. Despite pass over none appeared for the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 15.03.2011 and matter was fixed for plaintiff evidence.
7. Plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is PW1/A. Plaintiff proved the following documents:-
a) Agreement dated 01.12.2006 and signed on 27.01.2007 as PW1/1.
b) Legal notice dated 19.02.2009 as PW1/2.
c) Original postal receipts as PW1/3 (Colly).
d) Statement of account between the period 01.12.2006 to 30.03.2007
as PW1/4.
e) Book "Artificial intelligence" published by plaintiff and book "A
Classical approach to Artificial Intelligence" subsequently published CS No.214/2009 Page No. 4 of 7 by defendants as PW1/5 (Colly).
8. In her evidence by way of affidavit, plaintiff has deposed on the lines of the plaint. She was not subjected to any cross examination as defendants were ex- parte. Mode and manner of assignment of copyright is governed by sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The relevant portions of the same read as under:-
"18. Assignment of copyright.--(1) The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof :"
"19. Mode of assignment.-- 1[(1)] No assignment of the copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent."
9. Plaintiff has placed on record the agreement dated 01.12.2006 signed on 27.01.2007 as Ex.PW1/1. The same is signed by plaintiff as publisher. As per the said agreement defendant no.1 has assigned the copy right of the book titled "Artificial intelligence" to the plaintiff. As per the terms of the agreement defendant no.1 has agreed that names of other co-authors can be printed on the book for its publicity and sale. Plaintiff had agreed to pay Rs.12,000/- to defendant no.1 as one time payment as consideration. As per the statement of account PW1/4 there is a entry on 27.12.2006 against cheque no.984013 by which Rs.12,000/- has been paid to the defendant no.1. Statement of account PW1/4 also shows an entry on 28.03.2007 by which Rs.10,000/- was paid to defendant no.1 vide cheque no. CS No.214/2009 Page No. 5 of 7 984028. Plaintiff has duly proved that the defendant no.1 has assigned copyright in his book Artificial Intelligence by means of a written agreement Ext. PW1/1 duly executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff.
10. Plaintiff has placed on record the book published by her titled "Artificial intelligence". Plaintiff has also placed on record book titled "A Classical approach to Artificial Intelligence" published by defendant no.4 containing names of defendant no. 1, 2 and 3. Chapter 1 of both the books are titled as "Overview to artificial intelligence". The contents of the chapter one in the book "Artificial intelligence" and the contents of chapter one in the book "A Classical approach to Artificial Intelligence" are identical in most respects. It is apparent that the book published by defendant no.4 is identical to the book published by the plaintiff. Book published by the defendant no.4 has been written by defendant no.1 along with defendant no. 2 and 3. Defendant no.1 assigned the copy right of the book "Artificial intelligence" written by him to the plaintiff. There is apparent breach of the copy right and the terms of agreement Ex.PW1/1 committed by defendant no.1.
11. Plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs.2,25,000/- from the defendants as damages for violation of the copy right. Plaintiff has deposed that its earlier book did business of Rs.1,60,000/-. It is deposed that plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 19.02.2009 Ex.PW1/2 calling upon the defendants to pay Rs.2,25,000/- as damages. It is averred that no reply to the said legal notice was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff. Perusal of the legal notice dated 19.02.2009 PW1/2 reveals that in the notice plaintiff has claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. CS No.214/2009 Page No. 6 of 7 1,60,000/-. Basis of arriving at the said figure is the revenue generated by sale of its book for the session 2007-2008. There is no basis for the amount claimed in the suit i.e. 2,25,000/-. Since in the legal notice plaintiff had claimed to who claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs.1,60,000/- being the sales of its book for the academic session 2007-2008 and the in the absence of any cross examination on the plaintiff to her deposition in this regard, I hold the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs.1,60,000/- as damages from the defendant no.1. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for. The defendants no.1, 2 and 3 are restrained from copying or duplicating the book "Artificial Intelligence" in any manner whatsoever. Defendant no.4 is restrained from publishing, selling or marketing the book "A Classical approach to Artificial Intelligence" written by defendant no. 1 to 3. Plaintiff is also granted decree for mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 to take back all the books titled "A Classical approach to Artificial Intelligence" from the market and also to hand over the manuscript of the said book from defendant no.4 to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated to the Steno and announced in the Open Court today i.e. 19.10.2011.
(REETESH SINGH) Addl. Distt. Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No.214/2009 Page No. 7 of 7