Delhi District Court
Amit Vohra vs Sanyog Vyas on 9 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-06
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CS (COMM) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019
CNR No. DLWT010085872018
09.12.2024
Mr. Amit Vohra,
Owner/ Proprietor of
Amit Vohra Classes
Institute at
1/4, First Floor, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Sanyog Vyas
Flat No. 1704, 7th Floor,
Mohinder Apartments, Sector 12,
Dwarka, Delhi.
Also at
A-402, Nav Sanjivan Society,
Sector-12, Dwarka, Delhi-110075.
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.09.2018
Date of arguments : 07.12.2024
Date of judgment : 09.12.2024
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, RENDITION OF
ACCOUNTS OF PROFITS, DAMAGES, DILUTION, TAKE
DOWN ETC.
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I am deciding the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, dilution, take down etc. filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -1-2. In the plaint, it is mentioned that plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Amit Vohara Classes, having the institute's office at 1/4, East Patel Nagar, Opposite to pillar No. 180, New Delhi-110008. The plaintiff is the author of the study/course material and several books on subjects, namely Company Law, Economic Laws, Capital Marketing and Securities Laws, Industrial Labour and General Laws used in the business conducted by the said proprietorship firm for the purpose of imparting educational courses for Company Secretary, Chartered Accountancy and Cost Accountancy. The afore-stated proprietorship firm has its educational centers at various locations all over India and primarily the Plaintiff runs his business through his business centre located at 1/4, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, Opposite to Pillar No. 180, New Delhi-110008. The plaintiff has been engaged in the business of imparting coaching classes for the last 12 years. The plaintiff has created a good reputation for himself and also for his proprietorship firm. It is mentioned that the reputation of the classes provided by the plaintiff became vast and immensely popular amongst the students owing to the course material developed by the plaintiff the said course material is the artistic, creative and literally intellectual property of the plaintiff of which he is the legitimate author. The Plaintiff authored his books and study material with a purpose of imparting education to aspirants of certain professional courses, the same being Company Secretary, Chartered Accountancy and Cost Accountancy. The purpose was to impart the said education in a convenient, easy, understandable and logical manner. The content for the said classes was crafted CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -2- in a certain manner that required immense creativity and out of the box methodology on the Plaintiff's part. The plaintiff created the said methodology and also created his own study materials/ course material in the from of notes that are to be taught in the classes conducted by his institution/ proprietorship firm. It is mentioned that in addition to the said notes the plaintiff also authored several books on the above named subjects. The contents in the said notes and books are original in nature and have been a manifesto of the Plaintiff's intellect and creativity. The creativity of the Plaintiff lies in the fact that for easy understanding of students the Plaintiff was able to draw flow charts, define easy and understandable examples and other creative methods. It is mentioned that by virtue of Section 2 (O), Copyright Act, 1957, the content created by the Plaintiff is literally in nature. Further by virtue of section 2 (i), Copyright Act, 1957 the plaintiff is the author of the said content and books and hence, the plaintiff has legitimate copyright ownership of the said content and books. The plaintiff's content in his notes and books cannot be reproduced in any form without his consent or legally enforceable agreement. It is mentioned that owning to the said copyright ownership the plaintiff has the right to be protected against any and all the infringements. In the year, 2015 plaintiff entered into an agreement with M/s. Carvinowledge Press for publication of his commentaries and guide books for several subjects. The details are as under:-
(a) Industrial, Labour and General Law (multiple editions).
(b) Capital Markets and Securities Laws,
(c) Economic and Commercial Laws.CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -3-
(d) Company Law.
The plaintiff entered into several contracts with different publishing houses thereby duly authorising them to publish his work. The plaintiff has been charging royalty from the said publishing houses for publishing his content. It is mentioned that in May, 2017, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with M/s. Bharat Law Publication thereby duly authorized the said publication to make use of and publish his literary work. The plaintiff has been charging royalty with respect to the published books and its contents since he is the author of the said books and has complete rights and protection over the contents and the data contained in the books. It is further mentioned that in the month of September, 2017, it came to the plaintiff's notice that the defendant has been making use of the plaintiff's contents and the study material and books that have been authored by Plaintiff for subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law. The Defendant is engaged in illegal and unauthorized usage of books and notes in his business of tutorial classes which he conducts qua internet as well in person. The Defendant with complete awareness of the plaintiff's rights vested in his literary work and with a malafide intent has engaged in the above stated illegal business thereby violating and infringing the Plaintiff's copyright. The Defendant has reproduced the artistic work/ authored material of the Plaintiff in his books and his online lectures without any application of mind. Some of the similarities between the work of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law has been tabulated herein below:-
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -4-IL GL Industrial Labour & General Laws Publisher: LexisNexis-Carvinowledge Press Chapter/Page No. Original Product/Notes of the Counterfeited plaintiff products/Notes Facilities by The plaintiff has made a table The defendant in his Employer in a with the irregular sequential flow chart has made a Factory- Page No. order showing additional similar table with 229 facilities provided in a irregular sequential factory. order as that of plaintiff.
Welfare Measures- The plaintiff has made table The defendant has made Page No. 230 showing "Safety Measures" a similar flowchart and under factories act, but has has made a similar mistakenly titled it as mistake where he has "Welfare Measures" titled "Safety Measures" as "Welfare Measures"
Leaves under The plaintiff has made The defendant has Factories Act- typographical error wherein copied the same chart Page No. 232 he has stated the number of wherein he has made leaves available to a child the same typographical under Factories Act as "30' error showing leaves instead "40". available to a child as "30" instead of "40".
Employment of The plaintiff has mistakenly The defendant in his Women Page No. placed a table showing flowchart has copied 235 (Wrong "Display of Notice" under the similar sequence of Placement of the heading "Employment of error wherein he has "display Notice" Women". This has no placed chart of "Display connection with the heading of Notice" under the wherein this table has been heading "Employment placed. of women" inspite of there being no connection between the two.
Overtime wages- The plaintiff under the table The defendant in his Page No. 231 of "overtime wages" has flowchart of "overtime underlined only one word i.e. wages" has also "1 week" and no other part of underlined the same such table has underline. word i.e. "1 week"
without knowing the actual relevance of the word underlined and no other word has been underlined.
Application for The plaintiff while The defendant in his Registration- explaining Section 5 of Trade flow chart has copied CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -5- Section 5 of Trade Union Act, has intentionally the similar sequence Union Act- Page incorporated the provisions wherein he has also No. 62 (two of section 4 in his chart of the added the provision of different sections better understanding of section 4 in Section 5 of were merged) student. Trade Union Act.
Application of The plaintiff has created the The defendant in his Registration heading "Application of flowchart has copied supported by copy Registration supported by the same heading of Rules- section 6 copy of Rules" which is "Application of of Trade Union different from that given Registration supported Act- page No. 63 under the Act. by copy of Rules"
which has been created by plaintiff.
Application of The plaintiff has under the The defendant in his registration heading "Application of flowchart under the supported by copy Registration supported by the heading "Application of of Rules- Section copy of Rules" instead the Registration supported 6 of Trade Union words "maximum 3 years" in by copy of Rules" has Act- page No. 63 brackets. inserted the same word (every detail "maximum 3 years" in inside bracket is brackets.
same) Definition of The plaintiff in his chart The defendant in his Maternity benefit- under the heading Maternity flowchart under the Section 3 (h) Page Benefit under section 3(h) heading Maternity No. 40 has mistakenly written word Benefit under Section 3 "benefit" instead of (h) has made the same "Payment". mistake wherein he had written the word "benefit" instead of "Payment".
Definition of The plaintiff in his chart The defendant in his Wages- Section 3 under the heading Wages chart under the heading
(n). Page No. 41 under section 3 (n) has Wages under section 3 mistakenly written the word (n) has made the same "Incentives" & "Grain" mistake wherein he had instead of "Incentive Bonus" written the word & "Grains" respectively. "Incentives" & "Grain"
instead of "Incentive Bonus" & Grains"
respectively.
Background of The plaintiff has created this The defendant has Industrial Dispute heading "Background of copied the same Act- Page 199 Industrial Dispute Act" heading "Background (copy of the oldest which is not given in the Act of Industrial disputes edition) or the Module provided by Act" which is not given ICSI. in the Act.CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -6-
Background of The plaintiff under the The defendant under the Industrial Disputes heading "Background of heading "Background Act- Page 199 Industrial Disputes Act" had of Industrial Disputes made a typographical error Act" has made the wherein he has stated similar typographical "Employer's and Workmen's error wherein he has Disputed Act, 1860" instead stated "Employer's and of "Employers' and Workmen's Disputed workmen's Disputed Act, Act, 1860" instead of 1860 "Employers' and workmen's Disputed Act, 1860 Background of The plaintiff under the The defendant under the Industrial Disputes heading "Background of heading "Background Act- Page 199 Industrial Disputes Act" has of Industrial Disputes made a typographical error Act" has made the wherein he has stated the similar typographical word "Rule" Instead of error as that of plaintiff "Rules" wherein he has stated the word "Rule" Instead of "Rules"
Establishment- The plaintiff has made a flow The defendant is his Section 2 (iv) of chart explaining the counterfeited work has child Labour Act, definition of Establishment made the same flow 1986- Page No. 49 under section 2 (iv) of Child chart explaining the Labour Act, 1986 wherein he definition of has used different key word Establishment under to explain the meaning of section 2 (iv) of Child word "Establishment" Labour Act, 1986 wherein he has used same key words to explain the meaning of word "Establishment"
and in same order as that of plaintiff.
Appropriate The plaintiff has made a flow The defendant is his Government - chart explaining the counterfeited work has Section 3 (a) of definition of Appropriate made the same flow Maternity Benefit Government under section 3 chart explaining the Act Page No. 39 (a) of Maternity Benefit Act definition of wherein he had divided the Appropriate definition into two parts i.e. Government under "Central Government" and section 3 (a) of "State Government" and has Maternity Benefit Act further used (+) sign to wherein he has copied explain the word "Central the & divided the Government". definition into two parts i.e. "Central CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -7- Government" and "State Government"
and has further used (+) sign to explain the word "Central Government"
as done by plaintiff.
Subject: Capital Markets and Securities Law Publisher: Carvinowledge Press Chapter/ Page No. Original Product/ Notes Counterfeited Products/ of the plaintiff Notes Chapter: Origin and The plaintiff has selected The defendant is his Growth of financial & made a few pointers to counterfeited work has system- explain the "Depositories copied the same pointers Depositories Act, Act, 1996". to explain the 1996- Page No. -13 "Depositories Act, 1996".
Chapter: Investor The plaintiff has selected The defendant is his Protection - SEBI & made a few pointers to counterfeited work has (Informal explain SEBI (Informal copied the same pointers Guidance) Scheme, Guidance) Scheme, 2003 to explain SEBI (Informal 2003- Page No. 61- Guidance) Scheme, 2003 62 Chapter: The plaintiff has made The defendant is his Depositories Act, few pointers to explain counterfeited work has 1996- Key Features the "Key Features of copied the same pointers of Depositories Depositories System in to explain the "Features of System in India-93 India" Depositories System in India" and have used exactly similar language to explain the said features.
Chapter: Mutual The plaintiff has made a The defendant is his Funds- risk few bullet points to counterfeited work has Involved in Mutual explain the "Risks copied the same bullet Funds- Page No. involved in Mutual points to explain "Risks 148 Funds" involved in Mutual Funds"
Chapter: Public The plaintiff has selected The defendant is his issue of Securities- & made a couple of counterfeited work has Cash transaction pointers to explain the copied the same pointers Report- Page No. meaning of "Cash to explain the meaning of 327 Transaction Report" and "Cash Transaction Report"
has also not made any and has also not made any reference of related rules. reference of related rules. Chapter: Insider The plaintiff has made a The defendant is his Trading- few pointers to explain counterfeited work has Introduction/ the "Meaning of insider copied the same pointers CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -8- Meaning of Insider Trading" and have to explain the "Meaning of trading- Page No. selected few important insider Trading" and have 331 key words which were selected few important key given Bold Formatting. words which were given Bold Formatting by plaintiff. Defendant has used the same language & formatting throughout the topic.
Also, entire chapter
"Insider Trading" has been
word to word.
Chapter: Insider The plaintiff places the The defendant in his
Trading - definition in a particular counterfeited work has
Definition under order for better copied the same sequence
regulation 2 (1) - understanding even as used by the plaintiff
Page No. 331-333 through the same is not in without knowing the
sequence. intention behind it.
Chapter: Insider The plaintiff has given The defendant in his
Trading - the definition of counterfeited work has
Definition of "connected person" and also given the definition of
Connected person- in entire definition has "connected person" and Page No. 331-332 given Bold Formatting to has copied & has given only one word i.e. Bold Formatting to only "Section 2(72). one word i.e. "Section 2(72).
It is mentioned that the defendant issued books for the subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market and Securities Law for which he takes online courses, however, the lectures taken online by the defendant is completely different from the books he issued. The content of the online lecture of the defendant are verbatim copy of the plaintiff and the defendant has gone to the level of making the same English, Grammatical or typographical errors as made by the plaintiff in his books. It is also mentioned that in the month of December, 2017 the plaintiff approached the defendant with a bonafide intent to resolve the issues of infringement of his copyright over the authored books and study material. It is mentioned that upon CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -9- meeting the defendant, which transpired in to a fairly long discussion, the plaintiff raised his concern regarding his copyright over his literary and artistic work and further undertook to cease to do the same. The defendant undertook to compensate the plaintiff with a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards the loss of business opportunity and goodwill of the plaintiff. The defendant has admitted to the plaintiff that he had been engaged in infringing activities for only 6 months which resulted him in earning wrongfully and unlawfully an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The defendant upon discussions with the plaintiff also drafted an agreement cum undertaking which he wrote in his own handwriting, stating the fact of infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff and also the damages suffered by the plaintiff. It is mentioned that vide the same agreement the defendant detailed the losses with respect to each subject and also promised the plaintiff to compensate the plaintiff to an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The defendant had agreed to compensate the plaintiff and in pursuance of the same gave cheques to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has received the legal notice dated 10.01.2018 wherein, defendant has admitted that he was doing the business of online and Pendrive classes under the name and style of M/s. Sanyogvyaslawclass.com where he has been selling the classes and books to students since 2017. The defendant after admitting his guilt continued to cheat the plaintiff and cheques given by the defendant were dishonoured. The plaintiff has filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the defendant at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The plaintiff gave another opportunity to the defendant to settle the matter amicably and sent a legal notice dated 03.07.2018, allowing the defendant to make good CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -10- the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the illegal and unlawful act committed by the defendant. Upon receipt of legal notice, the defendant sent reply dated 30.07.2018. In reply the defendant has falsely stated that he has been in teaching profession since 2011. The defendant has made contradictory statements and as per legal notice dated 10.01.2018, defendant has been in teaching business since 2017. In reply to the legal notice dated 03.07.2018, defendant has changed his prior statement. It is mentioned that defendant has acted in pursuance of a malafide intent to create an illusion of being associated with the plaintiff in the minds of unwary students thereby illegitimately riding upon the goodwill and repute of the plaintiff and his proprietorship firm. As per the plaintiff, defendant has caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff and wrongful gain to himself. The plaintiff has ceased to create any more content owing to the rampant and blatant infringement of his right and stealing of his content by the defendant. It is mentioned that defendant has continued to advertise the afore-stated youtube channel on his personal website namely www.sanyogvyaslawclasses.com. The defendant has also continued his illegal and infringing business through internet from his channel namely Sanyog Vyas Law classes on www.youtube.com, wherein, the infringing services/lecturers imparted by the defendant have been advertised. It is prayed by the plaintiff to grant a order for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, franchisees and representatives from using any identical and deceptively and confusing similar content of study material, commentaries and books of the plaintiff CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -11- subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law. The plaintiff has also prayed for grant of order for mandatory injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, franchisees and representatives from using any identical and deceptively and confusing similar contents of study material, commentaries and books of the plaintiff subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law. Plaintiff has also prayed for grant order of takedown/destruction of the impugned video/material from youtube and any other websites for subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law. Plaintiff has prayed for grant of an order for delivery up of all the impugned infringing study material, commentaries and books for subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law. Plaintiff has also prayed for grant of an order for rendition of accounts/damages of Rs. 74,00,000/- on account of loss of business opportunity and loss of business by sale of infringing copyright books and study material and service by the defendant.
3. The defendant has filed written statement taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Order XI Rule-1 sub-rule 3 and Order XI Rule 6 CPC. Plaintiff has made false statement in the present suit. The suit deserves to be dismissed as plaintiff has made completely bald claims, which are based on surmises and conjectures. The plaintiff has neither obtained nor filed any certificate of Registration of its alleged copyright works, therefore, the suit is CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -12- not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The suit deserves to be dismissed as the alleged acts of the defendant do not constitute infringement under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is mentioned that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instructions does not amount to infringement. The defendant has not reproduced the plaintiff's work. It is submitted that the alleged work of the plaintiff has been used fairly to make his students understand as to what was intended to be understood. It is mentioned that even if the defendant has reproduced the plaintiff's work, it does not constitute infringement under the Copyright Act. The plaintiff has alleged copyright in its following literary work, which are alleged to be created and first published in 2015:-
(a) Industrial, Labour and General Law (hereinafter, "ILGL");
(b)Capital Markets and Securities Law (hereinafter, "CMSL");
(c) Economic and Commercial Laws (hereinafter, "ECL");
(d) Company Law (hereinafter, "CL").
It is mentioned that the defendant is the original author of several of works, which predate the alleged creation and publication of the plaintiff's work. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff's alleged copyright work is not an original literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act. On the contrary, the plaintiff is guilty of copying the content from the material authored by the defendant, which were created and published prior to the plaintiff's work. The plaintiff's work is a reproduction from the statute books, which are in public domain.
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -13-In such circumstances, the plaintiff's claim of infringement of its work is unfounded since it lacks any creativity, which is one of most essential element of originality. As per the defendant, a bare reading of the rival works would unambiguously reveal that there are material and substantial dissimilarities in the two, which negates the intention to the purported copying on the part of the defendant. It is mentioned that the whole work of the defendant is substantially dissimilar to the plaintiff's work and therefore, infringement of the plaintiff's work is not made out. As per the defendant, the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally made a false claim that the defendant has admitted to copying the plaintiff's work and given an undertaking to this effect and also agreed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is mentioned that the said undertaking was forcefully obtained by the plaintiff by intimidating and threatening the defendant with dire consequences. It is submitted that due to immense popularity of the defendant, the plaintiff repeatedly approached the defendant by telephone and SMS to join the plaintiff's institute as a faculty and each time the defendant has turned down the plaintiff's offer. It is mentioned that due to the plaintiff's continued insistence, the defendant agreed to meet with the plaintiff. On 15.12.2017, the defendant visited the plaintiff's premises. To the plaintiff's utter shock and horror, the defendant locked the doors of the premises and illegally confined the defendant in a room. The plaintiff then intimidated and threatened the defendant with dire consequences, including threats of his life and family members, if he failed to pay Rs. 25 lacs. The plaintiff upon the defendant's refusal to accede to the plaintiff's illegal demand, at gun point, forced the defendant to sign an undertaking wherein the defendant was CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -14- coerced to falsely admit committing infringement of the plaintiff's work and also to sign two cheques of Rs. 7,50,000/- each, bearing nos. 051715 and 051716 issued by ICICI Bank. The defendant has already filed a police complaint dated 06.01.2018 in this regard. The defendant also served a legal notice dated 10.01.2018 to the plaintiff regarding the execution of the undertaking and also sought damages to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs towards mental trauma. The present suit is a counterblast of the defendant's police complaint. In reply on merits, it is mentioned that after completion of Bachelor of Law course in the year 2011, defendant entered into the teaching profession. It is mentioned that in the year, 2011 the defendant started his career of teaching in a college in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Thereafter, in the year 2012 the defendant joined a popular institute namely "Blessings The Institute", Vikaspuri, New Delhi. The defendant also worked with other private institutes such as Academy of Commerce, Corporate Leader's Academy, Career Launcher, Institute for Grooming Professionals where he trained students in the field of law, company secretary, cost accountancy and chartered accountancy. During this time, the defendant made his own notes and presentations, which he distributed to his students. The defendant's compassion for his students made him extremely popular not only amongst the students but also amongst several coaching institutes across the National Capital Region. It is mentioned that the defendant after a few years of working with institute realized that he will be able to guide and coach only a few students in a face to face class environment. As per the defendant to fulfill his passion to expand his reach to as many as students possible, the defendant quit his job and started offering CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -15- online course through YouTube videos in the year, 2016 under the name 'Sanyog Vyas Law Classes' and through pen drives in the year, 2017 and these online courses became instant success. It is mentioned that defendant is well known in the coaching fraternity as well as amongst his students and his channel on www.youtube.com alone has over one lakh and fifty thousand subscribers. The plaintiff has made false allegations without filing any document in support of his claim. The defendant denied all the averments of copying of any alleged work of the plaintiff. It is denied that the said course material is the artistic, creative and literary intellectual property of the plaintiff of which he is the legitimate author. As per the defendant, the plaintiff has neither the creator of original work nor any copyright subsists in his name. It is mentioned that the plaintiff's work featured in several prior publication of either the defendant or the third parties. As per the defendant, the plaintiff's work is not original work, therefore, there is no question of infringement of copyright. As per the defendant, his content is original and created by him. It is denied that the defendant had reproduced the artistic work/ authored material of the plaintiff in his books and his online lectures without any application of mind. It is not denied that the defendant authored books for the subjects namely Industrial Labour & General Law and Capital Market & Securities Law for which he takes online courses. It is denied that the lectures which are taken online by the defendant is completely different from the books he issued. It is denied that the content of online lectures of the defendant are verbatim copy of the books of the plaintiff and the defendant has gone to the level of making the same English, grammatical and typographical CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -16- errors as made by the plaintiff in his books. It is denied that the defendant has admitted to the plaintiff that he had been engaged in infringing activities for six months which resulted him in earning wrongfully and unlawfully an amount of Rs. 15 lacs. It is denied that the defendant drafted an undertaking without any coercion. As per defendant, the undertaking was forcefully obtained by the plaintiff by intimidating and threatening him. It is denied that defendant had agreed to compensate the plaintiff through cheques. As per defendant, the allegations mentioned in notice dated 10.01.2018 are based on true chronology of events. As per the defendant, the cheques issued by him were obtained by the plaintiff by exercising coercion by illegally detaining the defendant on gun point. As per the defendant, it is the plaintiff, who has tried to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the defendant. It is mentioned that plaintiff has not suffered any wrongful loss as his works are neither original nor any copyright subsists with the plaintiff. As per the defendant, the undertaking was obtained by the plaintiff under coercion and has no legal sanctity. It is denied that the Youtube Channel on the defendant's personal website, namely www.sanyogvyaslawclasses.com consists of any course material or content that is infringing. It is denied that the defendant advertised the infringing services/lectures from his website, namely www.sanyogvyaslawclasses.com. Dismissal of suit is prayed by the defendant.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication and controverted the allegations made in the written statement and further reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -17-5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by me on 05.09.2024, which are as under:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed ? (OPP)
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? (OPP)
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ rendition to accounts, as prayed ? (OPP)
4) Relief.
6. In evidence plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of plaint. This witness has proved the Registration Certificate of plaintiff institute under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act as Mark-A, Original Book "IL GL Industrial Labour & General Laws" as Ex. PW1/2, Original Book "Capital Market & Securities Law" as Ex. PW1/3, Defendant's infringing content in "IL GL Industrial Labour & General Laws" as Ex. PW1/4, Defendant's infringing content in "Capital Market & Securities Laws" Ex. PW1/5 (from page No. 99 to 123), Copy of undertaking dated 15.12.2018 as Mark-B, Copy of legal notice dated 10.01.2018 as Ex. P-1, Copy of legal notice dated 03.07.2018 as Ex. PW1/8, Copy of courier receipts and speed post receipts as Mark-C, Copy of reply dated 30.07.2018 to legal notice as Ex. P-2 and Affidavit U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/11
7. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -18- cannot tell the exact month when he started giving lectures on his channel. This witness has stated that he had also given his description on his channel. This witness has stated that he is not aware if in his description of You Tube Channel his qualification is shown as CS, LLB and LLM. He has admitted that the courses /study material of CS, CA and CMA are decided/selected by their respective institutes /regulatory authorities. He has stated that the above mentioned courses keep on changing with minimal changes. This witness has stated that his book titled Industrial, Labour and General Laws ( multiple edition) was published in the year 2014 and he had written this book in 2004. He has stated that in every 06 months to one year the re-edition of this book is published. He has admitted that syllabus of above mentioned books have been changed and the name of book is changed as Setting up of Business, Industrial and Labour Laws. He has voluntarily stated that the contents of this book is the same. He has stated that the last edition of this book came in July, 2023. This witness has stated that his book titled Capital Market and Securities Laws was published in the year 2014 and he had written this book in 2004. He has admitted that there is change in the syllabus in the above said book from time to time. This witness has stated that he had published the latest edition of this book last year but he cannot tell the exact month. This witness has admitted that he has not filed the present suit on the basis of Economic and Commercial Laws and Company Law. He has admitted that the some portions of his book titled Capital Market and Securities Laws 2016 Edition are similar to the book titled Capital Market and Securities Laws by Sangeet Kedia Ist Edition Jan 2009 and 10th Edition July 2013 ( new syllabus). He CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -19- has voluntarily stated that Mr. Sangeet Kedia has taken his consent before publication of above mentioned book. This witness has admitted that the some portions of his book titled Industrial Labour and General Laws 2016 Edition are similar to the book titled Industrial Labour and General Laws 2016 by Sangeet Kedia Ist Edition June 2010 and 12th Edition Jan 2016 ( new syllabus). He has voluntarily stated that Mr. Sangeet Kedia has taken his consent before publication of above mentioned book. This witness has admitted that he had filed two complaints U/s 138 NI Act against the defendant in the year 2018 for a cheque of Rs. 7.50 lakh each. He has stated that the defendant himself decided to give two cheques of Rs. 7.50 lakh each to him. This witness has stated that because of the acts of the defendant, the strength of his institute came down from 250 to 42 and then further dropped from 42 to 08 students and on the basis of this he had claimed damages in the present suit. This witness has admitted that in the year 2017 there were private players/Edtech i.e. Un Academy, Byju's, physics wala and other online education players in the market. He has voluntarily stated that the above mentioned education players were not in the domain of company secretary course. This witness has stated that at present he is teaching with Unacademy and imparting teaching only to CS students. He has stated that there were 17 persons who had infringed his books and he had settled with 16 of them. He has admitted that he had uploaded the video on the You Tube Channel that 17 persons infringed his contents and he had settled matter with them. He has admitted that Mobile No. 8800478047 belongs to him. This witness has admitted that he had sent message to the defendant. This witness has stated that in CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -20- December, 2016 one student from South India called him and conveyed him that defendant is infringing his material and books and after receiving information he had verified this fact.
8. On the other hand, defendant has examined himself as DW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of written statement. This witness has proved Extract from securities law and compliance authored by Ajay Goenka and Sapna Tiwari, Ist Edition published in 2009 as Ex. DW1/1, Email dated 11.03.2014 sent by defendant to Ms. Vandana for Capital Market and securities Laws authored by defendant published in 2014 as Ex. DW1/2 (colly), Extract from Capital market and Securities Laws authored by Mr. Sangeet Kedia on page no. 209 of 12st edition published in 2014 as Ex. DW1/3, Email dated 11.03.2014 sent by defendant to Ms. Vandana for Capital Market and Securities Laws authored by defendant on page no. 12 published in 2014 as Ex. DW1/4 (colly), Email dated 11.03.2013 sent by defendant to Ms. Vandana for Capital Market and Securities Laws authored by defendant on page no. 123 published in 2014 as Ex. DW1/5 (colly), Extract from Securities Laws and Compliance Laws authored by Mr. Sangeet Kedia on page no. 120 and 121 of 10 th Edition published in Jan, 2013 as Ex. DW1/6, extract from Study Module Published issued by ICSI on page no. 535 published in 2014 as Ex. DW1/7 (colly), copy of notification issued by SEBI in the notification No LAD-NRO/GN /2014-15/21/85 dated 15.01.2015 as Ex. DW1/8 (colly), copy of police complaint dated 06.01.2018 as Mark-A, printout of SMS received by defendant as Ex. D-3 (colly), printout of the defendant's page form the CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -21- website www.youtube.com as Ex. PW1/11 (colly) and Affidavit U/s 65-B of Evidence Act as as Ex. DW1/12.
9. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During cross examination, this witness has stated that he has not qualified any CS, CA or Cost Accounting. He has admitted that his contents were never published with any renowned publisher. This witness has stated that whatever contents he has created, he is having copy right over the same. This witness has denied that he is not giving any lectures as mentioned in Ex. PW-1/4 at present. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has put page no. 71 of Ex. PW1/4 and asked if in the heading Welfare Measures has been wrongly mentioned and it should be mentioned as Safety Measures and witness replied that this lecture was published about 8-9 years back so he does not remember. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has put page no. 73 of Ex. PW1/4 and asked 'why he has underlined the word 1 week and no other word is underlined in the said page. Witness replied that he does not remember. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put page no. 74 of Ex. PW-1/4 and asked that he has mentioned the number of leaves for both adult and children as 30 while actually for children under the Factories Act, the leaves entitled are 40 and witness replied that he does not remember. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has again put question to witness that the same mistake has been made by the plaintiff at page no. 233 of Ex. PW-1/2 and he has simply copied the same from the plaintiff's book and witness replied it is incorrect. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put page no. 84 of Ex. PW1/4 asked the witness if he has mentioned one Statute as "Bonus Act 1965" but there is no such act, the CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -22- witness replied he does not remember. This witness has admitted that at page no. 331 of plaintiff book Ex. PW1/3 Capital Market and Securities Law covering introduction, rationale, legal frame work are not present in SEBI, Insider Trading Regulation. This witness has stated that he does not remember if in his reply dated 30.07.2018 he has agreed to carry out changes in his contents. He has stated that at present he is not giving any lectures Online on CA, CS and Cost and Management Accounting. He has stated that the cost of one course was from Rs. 3000 to Rs. 5000/-. This witness has stated that he started giving lectures on the above mentioned subject Online in April, 2017 and he had given lectures till Aug/Sept, 2023. This witness has stated that he does not have any knowledge as to what happened to his police complaint given by him against the plaintiff. This witness has denied the suggestion that he has copied the plaintiff's contents which is evident from the fact that even the same mistakes and errors are included in his contents.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record carefully.
11. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
12. Issue No. 1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed ? (OPP) & Issue No.2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? (OPP) Both the issues are interconnected and can be decided together. The burden to prove both the issues is upon the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -23-It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is author of study/course material and he has written several books on subjects namely Company Law, Economic and Commercial Laws, Capital Marketing and Securities Laws, Industrial Labour and General Laws. The present case is in respect of two books i.e. Industrial Labour & General laws and Capital Marketing & Securities Law. It is also case of the plaintiff that his material has been published as books by renowned publishers like M/s. Carvinowledge Press and M/s. Bharat Law House and the said works are thus entitled to Copyright protection under Section 14 r/w Section 2(c), 2(o) and Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant contends that the work of the defendant is his creation and plaintiff has not registered his work with Copyright any where, so no copyright can be claimed by the plaintiff.
13. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed Copyright protection in plaintiff's work in his courses on "Industrial Labour & General laws" and "Capital Marketing & Securities Law". The plaintiff has filed the original works for the said two courses on record which is Ex. PW-1/2 & Ex. PW-1/3. The plaintiff has placed on record the defendant's infringing content in "Industrial Labour & General laws" as Ex. PW-1/4 and defendant's infringing content in "Capital Market & Securities Laws" as Ex. PW-1/5 (from page no. 99 to 123).
14. Plaintiff has made an error in his book Ex. PW-1/2. The defendant in his work Ex.PW-1/4 at page 84 has made the same mistake. During cross examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -24- put page no. 255 of Ex. PW-1/2 which referred to Payment of Bonus Act as Bonus Act, 1965 mistakenly and same mistake is there in the content of defendant which is Ex. PW-1/5 and witness replied that it is incorrect. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put page no. 230 of Ex. PW-1/2 and asked the question if the chart at point A to A1 on page no. 230 of Ex. PW-1/2 is published by any other author and DW-1 replied that he has no knowledge in this regard. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put page no. 71 of Ex. PW-1/4 to the DW-1 and asked if the heading Welfare Measures has been wrongly mentioned and it should be Safety Measures and DW-1 has stated that this lecture was published about 8-9 years back so he does not remember. During cross examination, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has put page no. 73 of Ex. PW1/4 to the DW-1 and asked 'why he has underlined the word 1 week and no other word is underlined in the said page. Witness replied that he does not remember. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put page no. 74 of Ex. PW-1/4 and asked if he has mentioned the number of leaves for both adult and children as 30 while actually for children under the Factories Act, the leaves entitled are 40 and witness replied that he does not remember. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has again put question to witness that the same mistake has been made by the plaintiff at page no. 233 of Ex. PW-1/2 and he has simply copied the same from the plaintiff's book and witness replied it is incorrect. During cross examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has put page no. 116 of book Ex. PW-1/5 in which he had put "Section 2(72)" in bold and no other content is in bold. The witness replied that he does not remember.
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -25-I am of the view that witness has given evasive replies to the questions put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. I am of the view that plaintiff is able to prove that defendant has copied the works/books Ex. PW-1/2 & Ex. PW-1/3 in Ex. PW-1/4 & Ex. PW-1/5. Reliance can be placed on judgment titled as " R.G. Anand v. Delux Films" AIR 1978 SC 1613, wherein, it is held that "it is not necessary that the alleged infringement should be an exact or verbatim copy of the original but its resemblances with the original in a large measure is sufficient to indicate that it is a copy".
15. If we compare both the books i.e. Ex. PW-1/2 with Ex. PW-1/4 and Ex. PW-1/3 with Ex. PW-1/5 it shows that defendant has reproduced the plaintiff's work in his books Ex. PW-1/4 & Ex. PW-1/5. As per Section 13 of Copyright Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in respect of the original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. In the present case the plaintiff has sent legal notice dated 03.07.2018 and the defendant in the reply dated 30.07.2018 has agreed to make changes to the contents of his books and study material. In this reply, the defendant has asked the plaintiff if he requires any other changes, please identify the notes, diagrams, flow charts etc. It is not denied that the work of the plaintiff is not the original work and work of the plaintiff was published prior to the publication of books/study material by the defendant. The document Ex. PW-1/2 is the 2nd edition of the Industrial, Labour & General Laws which was published in the year, 2016 whereas the work of the defendant does not show in which year this book was published. The plaintiff in the cross examination has clearly CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -26- stated that this book was published in the year, 2014 and he has written this book in the year, 2004. Similarly, the book of the plaintiff Ex. PW-1/3 was published in the year, 2016 and the work of the defendant was published thereafter. So, the books/study material of the plaintiff were published prior to the books/study material of the defendant. As per Section 17 of Copyright Act, the author of the work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. Moreover, defendant has executed an undertaking which is placed on record as Mark-B and the defendant has admitted that he has executed this undertaking. In the written statement the defendant has admitted the undertaking but it is contended by the defendant that plaintiff has taken this undertaking by intimidating and threatening him. This undertaking was given by the defendant on 15.12.2017 and police complaint regarding taking of this undertaking under intimidation and threat was given by the defendant on 06.01.2018. DW-1 has admitted that no action was taken on complaint given by him. As the defendant has acknowledged in the undertaking that he has copied whether intentionally or unknowingly the contents from the books Industrial, Labour & General Laws and Capital Markets & Securities Laws authored by CS Amit Vohra under the Brand 'Carvinowledge & Bharat Law publications. Defendant has also confirmed and agreed in the undertaking that in future he will not copy the contents of any of the books authored by CS Amit Vohra, whether in present or in future in his books or his video classes whether published or in print media form. He has also agreed to hand over all his PPT's to Amit Vohra. In the undertaking, it is also mentioned that Amit Vohar has granted a time duration of one and half month (till CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -27- January, 2018) to sell off the existing study material & video classes. Defendant has also undertaken that no existing recording shall be sold to students after January, 2018. The defendant has admitted to write this undertaking and in this undertaking he also acknowledged that he had copied the books Industrial, Labour & General Laws and Capital Markets & Securities Laws which was authored by the plaintiff. Moreover, no question regarding Mark- B was asked from the plaintiff during his cross examination.
16. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that one Mr. Sangeet Kedia has also copied the work of the plaintiff, so plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that PW-1 has admitted that the some portions of book titled Capital market and Securities Laws 2016 Edition are similar to the book titled Capital Market and Securities Laws by Sangeet Kedia 1 st Edition Jan 2009 and 10th Edition July 2013 and PW-1 has replied that Mr. Sangeet Kedia had taken his consent before publication of the above mentioned book. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has admitted that some portions of his book titled Industrial Labour and General Laws 2016 Editions are similar to the book titled Industrial Labour and General Laws 2016 by Sangeet Kedia 1st Edition June 2010 and 12th Edition Jan 2016 and witness has stated that Mr. Sangeet Kedia had taken his consent before publication of above mentioned book. The defendant has not examined Mr. Sangeet Kedia in his defence evidence. The defendant should have examined Sh. Sangeet Kedia as a witness to prove his contention. Thus, this contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force.
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -28-17. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that even if it is admitted that defendant has copied the work/books of the plaintiff then the defendant is protected under Section 52 of Copyright Act, 1957. I am of the view that this defence u/s 52 of Copyright Act is not available to the defendant, as defendant is not rendering class room teaching but selling pre-recorded courses and published material in open market for profit. So, this contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force.
18. I am of the view that plaintiff is able to prove both the issues and both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
19. Issue No. 3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ rendition to accounts, as prayed ? (OPP) The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant has copied his work and due to which he has suffered losses. The plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 74 lacs on account of business loss due to copyright of books and study material by the defendant. Defendant during cross examination has clearly stated that at present he is not giving any lectures online on CA, CS and Cost and Management Accounting. He has stated that the cost of one course was from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/-. DW-1 has stated that he started giving lectures online in April, 2017 and he had given lectures till Aug/Sept, 2023. PW-1 during cross examination has stated that courses/study material of CS, CA and CMA keep on changing with minimal changing. He has stated that in every six CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -29- months to one year the re-edition of book is published. He has also categorically stated that in every six months there are amendments in the contents of the book and he used to make changes in respect of the amendments and published the book accordingly. He has admitted that there is change in the syllabus in the books from time to time. Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that he is liable to damages to the tune of Rs. 74 lacs from the defendant. Plaintiff has not brought any independent evidence to prove that due to acts of the defendant, he has suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 74 lacs. It is admitted fact that defendant has given undertaking Mark-B to the plaintiff. This undertaking was given on 15.12.2017. Vide this undertaking the defendant has agreed to compensate the plaintiff for amount of Rs. 15 lacs. Defendant has undertaken that he has copied whether intentionally or unknowingly the copyright content from the books Industrial, Labour & General Laws and Capital Markets & Securities Laws. Defendant has also agreed to compensate the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- in respect of book Industrial Law and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of book Capital Market & Securities Laws. The plaintiff has not placed on record any document to show that books/contents of defendant Ex. PW-1/4 & Ex. PW-1/5 are still in circulation. The defendant has issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- each in favour of the plaintiff. Both the cheques given by the defendant were dishonoured on their presentation. Plaintiff has filed complaint u/s 138 NI Act which is pending in the court of Ld. JMFC, Delhi. Even, in the undertaking the defendant has also mentioned that he agreed to give compensation amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- which shall be paid in two equal installments by CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -30- cheques dated 16.12.2017 and 15.01.2018. I am of the view that plaintiff is only entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/-. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
20. Now, the question arises what rate of interest plaintiff is entitled on the amount of damages.
The defendant has given two cheques amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- each to the plaintiff and both the cheques were dishonoured and complaint u/s 138 NI Act is pending between the parties. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors MANU/SC/0663/2001 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this judgment it is held that according to stroud's Judicial dictionary of Words and Phrases interest means, inter alia, compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors Vs G. C. Roy Manu/ SC/0297/1992 (1992) 2 SCC 508, it is held that the constitution bench opined that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is the principles of Section 34 CPC.
In this judgment, Judgment of Dr. shamlal Narula Vs CIT Punjab MANU/ SC/0109/1964 (53) was also relied upon wherein it is held that interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of the money. In this judgment it is also held that in whatever CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -31- category "interest in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is charge for the use of forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by customs or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or of the delay in paying money after it has become payable.
Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Aditya Mass Communication (P) Ltd Vs APSRTC MANU/SC/0759/2003 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest @ 12% per annum. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of "M/s IHT Network Limited Vs. Sachin Bhardwaj"
in RFA No. 835/2016 & CM Appl.14617/2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted interest @12% per annum. I am of the view that plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- from 15.12.2017 since when the undertaking was given by the defendant till realization.
21. RELIEF:
In view of my above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, his associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, franchisees and representatives from using any identical and deceptively and confusing similar content of study material, commentaries and books of the plaintiff subjects namely Industrial, Labour & General Laws and Capital Markets & Securities Laws. A decree for mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -32- restraining the defendant, his associates and agents, officers, employees, distributors, franchisees and representatives from using any identical and deceptively and confusing similar contents of study material, commentaries and books of the plaintiff subjects namely Industrial, Labour & General Laws and Capital Markets & Securities Laws. Defendant is also directed to take down/destruction of the impugned video/material from youtube and any other websites for subjects namely Industrial, Labour & General Laws and Capital Markets & Securities Laws. The plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from 15.12.2017 since when the undertaking was given by the defendant till realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the (NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA)
open court on 09.12.24 District Judge, Comm. Court-06
West, Tis Hazari Courts
Extension Block, Delhi/09.12.2024
Digitally
signed by
NARESH
NARESH KUMAR
KUMAR MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2024.12.09
16:26:51
+0530
CS (Comm.) Old No. 31/18 & New No. 414/2019 -33-