Delhi High Court - Orders
Mr Surender Mohan Pathak vs Abhinav Shrivastava(Bhopali) & Ors. & ... on 23 February, 2022
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~3(Original Side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 412/2021, I.A. 11201/2021 & I.A. 17475/2021
MR SURENDER MOHAN PATHAK ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Vandita
Nain & Mr. Piyush Mohan
Dwivedi, Advs.
versus
ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA(BHOPALI) & ORS. & ORS.
..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv. for
D1, 2, 3 & 5
Mr. Vivek Sarin, Mr. Satish C.
Kaushik & Ms. Shakshi Shreya,
Advs. for D4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 23.02.2022 (By Video-Conference on account of COVID-2019) I.A. 11201/2021 (under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 and Order XL, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. The grievance of the plaintiff is that Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 have, without his approval or permission, prepared a script in a presentation form, of the novel, "पैंसठ लाख की डकैती" "(Sixty Five Lac Heist)", written by him and had got it registered with the Screen Writers Association (SWA; Defendant 4 in the present proceedings), on 21st January, 2020. He submits that the defendants had no authority, whatsoever, to prepare such a script and have it registered Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 412/2021 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:03.03.2022 12:51 without his permission. He has invited my attention to various e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants which seem to indicate that negotiations were in progress between them, as to whether terms could be arrived at, on the basis of which the defendants could be permitted to exploit the script of the plaintiff‟s novel, but that they reached a dead end. In this light, Mr. Mishra submits, however, that negotiations were not ad idem but were being thrust on his clients by the defendant.
2. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. Pleadings in the suit are in the process of completion before the learned Joint Registrar.
4. Apropos the application, the prayer of the plaintiff reads thus:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to the Ld. Court that the Ld. Court may be pleased to:
a. Allow the present application and Grant ad-interim ex- parte injunction against the defendant and its officers, employees, agents, solicitors, assigns, successors etc., restraining them jointly and severely from printing, selling, using, circulating, sharing or transmitting in any manner the spurious and false presentation and the registration certificate of the famous book titled as "पैं सठ लाख की डकैती" and in English titled as "Sixty Five Lac Heist", used by the defendants till the adjudication of the accompanying suit;
b. Appoint a court receiver to visit the places as stated in para 6 of the application where the spurious form of extracts from the book either in whole or in part are stored, saved, or Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 412/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:03.03.2022 12:51 kept thereof and to take possession of the all the copies stored therein; and c. Pass such other order/s or direction/s as may be deemed fit and appropriate to this Hon‟ble Court in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case."
5. Mr. Bharti, learned Counsel for Defendants 1 and 5 submits that, as attempts at arriving at a business arrangement with the plaintiff did not work out, Defendant 5 wrote to Defendant 4 (the SWA), to cancel the registration of the script prepared by him and that, thereafter, the script has been cancelled. Mr. Vivek Sarin, learned Counsel for Defendant 4, also clarifies that acknowledgment of authorship, which had been granted in favour of Defendant 5 for the said script has also been revoked.
6. Mr. Bharti also submits that, as terms could not be settled between the plaintiff and his clients, his clients have no interest or intention, whatsoever, to make, disseminate, exploit or otherwise make commercial use, in any manner, of the novel "पैंसठ लाख की डकैती" "(Sixty Five Lac Heist)", written by the plaintiff or of any translation of the script thereof.
7. In view of the said statement, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, fairly does not press prayer „b‟ in this application and submits that this application may be disposed of recording the aforesaid statement of the defendants and binding them to it. He, nonetheless, submits that his client would seek to continue to prosecute the present proceedings on the aspect of damages and costs.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 412/2021 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:03.03.2022 12:518. In view thereof, the present IA 11201/2021 is disposed of by recording the statement of Mr. Bharti, on behalf of Defendants 1,2,3 and 5 that the said defendants would not print, sell, use, circulate, share or transmit, in any manner, any presentation or other script or representation of the plaintiffs‟ book, "पैंसठ लाख की डकैती" (Sixty Five Lac Heist), pending disposal of the present proceedings.
9. Prayer „b‟ of the application is disposed of as not pressed.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not feel it necessary to continue to retain Defendant 4 as a party in these proceedings, though Mr. Mishra submits that they have been reckless and negligent. As such, Defendant 4 is deleted. The suit shall continue to be prosecuted qua Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 solely on the aspect of costs and damages.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J FEBRUARY 23, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 412/2021 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:03.03.2022 12:51