Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh Subhash Dey & Anr vs Shree Mahavir Book Deopt Publisher A ... on 10 October, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 61/2022 & CM APPL. 21102/2022
SH SUBHASH DEY & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma and Mr. Kapil
Kaushik, Advs.
versus
SHREE MAHAVIR BOOK DEOPT PUBLISHER A
PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS
PARTNERS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aditya Goel, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 10.10.2022
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Commercial Court in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in CS (Comm.) No.841/2020 titled "Shree Mahavir Book Depot.(Publisher) & others v. Subhash Dey".
2. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has restrained the appellant from marketing, distributing, free sampling, selling and advertising or doing any promotional activities in respect of the books in question, authored by the appellant.
3. The suit raises several contentious issues including whether the appellant had assigned his copyright in respect of the books in question in favour of the respondent or not. Whilst the respondent claims that the appellant had assigned the copyright of the said books to it in terms of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 61/2022 Page 1 of 2 By:KAMALDEEP KAUR Signing Date:14.10.2022 11:01:18 agreement dated 24.09.2017, the appellant disputes the same. According to the appellant, the agreement in question had granted the respondent, limited right for publication of the books. However, there is no dispute that the rights and obligations of the parties stem from the agreement dated 24.09.2017.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that although the said agreement does not specify the period of grant, the terms clearly indicate that copyright was assigned to the respondent. He concedes that in terms of Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the same stands terminated with effect from 24.09.2022. He fairly submits that in view of the above, the injunction granted in terms of the impugned order cannot survive beyond 24.09.2022.
5. In view of the aforesaid and without going into the question of the rights of the parties under the Agreement dated 24.09.2017, this Court considers it apposite to dispose of the petition as the order dated 24.09.2022 has ceased to operate. It is so directed.
6. It is clarified that all contentions of the parties are reserved. Nothing stated in the present order shall be construed as an expression of an opinion on the merits of the dispute.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 10, 2022 'KDK' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 61/2022 Page 2 of 2 By:KAMALDEEP KAUR Signing Date:14.10.2022 11:01:18