Delhi District Court
M/S Orange Education Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Partha Majumdar on 11 February, 2026
CNR No. DLCT010003452024 IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA: DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03: CENTRAL : TIS HAZARI COURTS (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI. CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 In the matter of :- M/S ORANGE EDUCATION PVT. LTD. (Parent Body of M/s ORANGE AVA') Through Mr. Sourabh Dwivedi Having its Office at 9, Daryaganj, Near LIC Office New Delhi Email - [email protected] Phone - 8285668850 ........Plaintiff Versus 1. MR. Partha Majumdar R/o: Flat SF - 09, Sneha Sindhu Apartments No.25 Shampura Main Road, [Ex-parte vide KB Sandra, RT Nagar Bengaluru - 560032 order dated Mobile No.: +91 9740642096 13.12.2024] Email: [email protected] 2. M/s BPB Publications, BPB Online Office at: GF Munish Plaza, 20, Ansari Road, Opp. Fire Brigade Building, Daryaganj, New Delhi Mobile No. 9810025133, 9999999807 Email: [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] .......Defendants CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 1 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11 16:41:56 +0530 Date of Institution : 08.01.2024 Date on which Judgment reserved : 06.02.2026 Date on which judgment pronounced : 11.02.2026 SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court set to adjudicate on myriad issues flagged on either side, let the Court to spell out laconically the landscape of the pleadings.
2. This is a suit for Specific Performance of Contract dated 01.09.2023, Declaration, Permanent Injunction and Recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- u/s 34 of the Specific Performance Act, filed by plaintiff against the defendants.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff is the publisher of educational books. The books are for schools, colleges and professional learners and are supplied all over the world. ORANGE AVA is an internal division of the plaintiff and Mr. Sourabh Dwivedi is duly authorized to sign, verify and institute the present proceedings for and on behalf of the plaintiff through Board Resolution.
4. It has been further averred in the plaint that the defendant No.1, an author expressed his wish to publish books titled as "Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning" through the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is a publisher, connived with the defendant No.1 and published the 'work' illegally on his website though the 'work' was owned by the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 2 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11 16:42:04 +0530
5. It has been further averred that the present suit is primarily to address the unauthorized usage of the 'literary work' as defined under Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It has been further averred that the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with plaintiff on 01.09.2022, through which he gave the plaintiff WORLDWIDE COPYRIGHT in English and all other languages including all types of printed, electronic format, e-books, IOS Apps, Kindle, Android apps and all other e- platforms on an exclusive basis for the manuscript/work titled, "Mastering Classifications Algorithms for Machine Learning".
6. It has been further averred that through the contract dated 01.09.2022, it was agreed that the sole and exclusive right to edit, annotate, introduce, enlarge, print, publish, distribute, sell and authorize others to distribute and the work in whole or in part in the form of books, e-book, online, on the web, pamphlets periodicals print on demand or any other form of printed words whatsoever will be under the name of the plaintiff and/ or other trade names as plaintiff may determine at its discretion. It has been further averred that the defendant No.1 had signed the contract and informed the plaintiff of writing the book.
7. It has been further averred that it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that if the copyright of the 'work' is believed to be infringed by others and if no other arrangement is arrived at for the joint action, either party shall have the right to take any action in such infringements and enjoy the damages and other reliefs granted by Court of law; that if the parties proceed jointly, the expenses and recovery whatsoever shall be shared equally; that if the parties don't proceed jointly, either party shall have the right to go ahead with suitable legal CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 3 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:42:13 +0530 action and such party shall bear all expenses thereof and any recoveries made shall belong to such a party.
8. It has been further averred that it was agreed by the defendant No.1 that if plaintiff decided not to publish the book, then the rights will be given back to defendant No.1 but it was mandatorily required for defendant No.1 to procure the letter in writing from plaintiff. It has been further averred that the defendant No.1 agreed not to write the same content for any other publication without prior written permission from its client and it was amply clear that the plaintiff only had the first right to refusal.
9. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is vested with the exclusive rights of producing and publishing the work as envisaged by the Copyright Act. It has been further averred that the defendant No.1 was specifically restrained to deliver any manuscript, photographs, photostats, maps, etc., already published or permit any other publishers to publish any material in any printed form including visual and/ or recording of sound, based on the material in the 'Work' assigned by plaintiff or which, in the opinion of plaintiff was likely to injure sales of the work.
10. It has been further averred that the plaintiff invested in the project as defendant No.1 showed inclination for it and subsequently plaintiff and defendant No.1 shared all necessary details and defendant No.1 worked on the manuscript editing and pre-publishing tasks of the book from September, 2022 till May, 2023. It has been further averred that the defendant No.1 from time to time prepared the chapters submitted to the plaintiff for approval and proceeded towards the completion of the CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 4 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 16:42:25 +0530 2026.02.11 manuscript.
11. It has been further averred that the book 'Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning' was to be prepared from 18.09.2022 to 01.01.2023. The chapters were written and the annexures were submitted and the defendant vide email dated 09.04.2023 had submitted a book proposal to the plaintiff for approval and the details of the chapter are mentioned in Para 9 of the plaint.
12. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is the copyright owner of the work or an exclusive licensee got registered 'Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning' on 13.04.2023 with Raja Ram Mohun Roy National Agency as ISBN 9789388590792 and E-ISBN 9789388590778 for the book alongwith the name of defendant No.1 as Author. It has been further averred that the proprietary right of the project lies with plaintiff and this work was protected by applicable copyright laws, granting exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works based on it but irresponsible act of defendant No.1 caused loss to the plaintiff.
13. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had submitted the work to defendant No.1 for final approval and the final draft was submitted and accepted on 21.03.2023, 08.04.2023 and 15.05.2023. Meanwhile, defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No. 2 with intention to cheat the plaintiff had shared the entire contents with defendant No.2 for publication with pre-planned malafide intention to take benefit from the investment of plaintiff.
14. It has been further averred that once the manuscript CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 5 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:42:34 +0530 was in shape to be published, defendant No.1 decided to move on with another publisher, defendant No.2 had shared the manuscript against the terms of contract agreement dated 01.09.2022 signed with the plaintiff. The details of the investment made by the plaintiff are mentioned in Para 12 of the plaint.
15. It has been further averred that observing the acts of defendant No.1, plaintiff had sent an email dated 26.04.2023 informing the defendant No.1 that Plaintiff is available to sell the product developed by him on all the relevant and major channels across the world and has a strength of 150 sales personnel for physical distribution; that it was informed to defendant No.1 that plaintiff is legally bound to publish any content received during collaboration period by virtue of the contract that was signed at the beginning of the project; that the plaintiff had informed the defendant No.1 that if the defendant No.1 does not abide by the terms, then the plaintiff shall invoke his legal rights.
16. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has invested its resources to build something meaningful and taking a step back caused loss to plaintiff, financially and brand success wise and the defendant No.1 was advised by the plaintiff to consider clauses (a), 1, 14, 15 and 16 of the signed contracts and not to share the content with any other publisher, channel or distributor as it will stand in conflict to the above stated clauses and plaintiff also promised defendant No.1 to deliver the best possible results and a regular update on the market journey of the product.
17. It has been further averred that despite all the CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 6 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:42:42 +0530 efforts, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants published the work title 'Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning'; that the published work is exactly the same as plaintiff's copyrighted work, thereby infringing upon plaintiff exclusive rights; that the similarities between the two works are evident on BPB Online.com and Amazon.in against the terms of the agreement dated 01.09.2022 with plaintiff and earning huge profit on the investment of the plaintiff.
18. It has been further averred that the plaintiff found that defendant No.1 in connivance with Mr. Manish Jain and Nrip Jain i.e., owners/ directors of defendant No.2 in a malafide manner entered into agreement dated 01.09.2022 with plaintiff to use the manpower and facilities of plaintiff and later published through defendant No.2 for commercial purposes and caused financial losses to the plaintiff and nurtured own benefit. It has been further averred that Mr. Nrip Jain i.e. owner/ Director of defendant No. 2 mentioned to the plaintiff on whatsapp about the receipt of manuscript of the work being prepared by the plaintiff alongwith defendant No.1.
19. It has been further averred that on 26.04.2023, official of the plaintiff clearly indicated that plaintiff is available to sell defendant No.1 product on all relevant and major channels across the world and have a strength of 150 sales personnel for physical distribution; that plaintiff had legally bound themselves to publish content received during collaboration period by virtue of the contract signed at the beginning of the project; that the plaintiff invested resources to build something meaningful and taking a step back by defendant No.1 is a loss, financially and brand success wise. Plaintiff advised defendant no. 1 consider CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 7 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:42:51 +0530 clauses (a), 1, 14, 15 and 16 of signed contract, further not to share the content with any other publisher, channel or distributor as it will stand in conflict to the above stated clauses; that the plaintiff vide email dated 11.05.2023 made formal request to defendant No.1 for publishing the content finally approved and ready for publication.
20. It has been further averred that the action of defendant No.1 as detailed herein above constitute not only infringing activities but also constant cheating and fraud and as such there is an urgent need for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their illegal and malafide activities; that the defendants had used unauthorized content, violated contracts and illegally shared the content developed with the help and investment of the plaintiff with other persons/ publisher i.e. defendant No.2 without any authorization.
21. It is further averred that since the defendant did not compensate the plaintiff for damages by paying Rs.20,00,000/- in terms of the Publishing Agreement, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 24.05.2023 to the defendants through speed post, but to no avail. Further, the plaintiff had filed an application for initiating pre-institution mediation on 10.08.2023 before DLSA, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, however, since the defendant did not participate in mediation proceedings, a Non-Starter Report dated 28.11.2023 was issued by the authority.
22. Thus, aggrieved by the acts of defendants, plaintiff has filed the present suit for Specific Performance of Contract dated 01.09.2023 to declare the plaintiff as exclusive owner of the copyright "Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 8 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 16:42:59 +0530 2026.02.11 Learning" within the meaning of section 2(o) of the Copyright Act as per terms of the agreement dated 01.09.2022 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, for permanent injunction to publish or circulate "Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning" and restrain from infringement of the copyright work by the defendant and to pass a decree of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith interest @ 10% per annum till realization of the amount.
23. Summons of suit for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. Despite service, the defendant No.1 neither appeared nor filed any written statement within the period stipulated under Commercial Courts Act, hence, opportunity to file written statement was closed vide order dated 24.07.2024. Thereafter, vide order 13.12.2024, the defendant No.1 was proceeded ex-parte.
24. The defendant No.2 has contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. However, since the WS was filed after the expiry of period of 120 days i.e. on 126 th day after the service of defendant No.2, the WS filed on behalf of the defendant No.2 has been struck off the record vide order dated 18.09.2024.
25. Accordingly, no replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Hence, no issues were framed in the instant case.
(B) Evidence :-
26. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined the AR of the plaintiff Sh. Sourabh Dwivedi as PW1. He CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 9 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:06 +0530 reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Copy of Board Resolution Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copies of e-mail and agreement both dated Ex.PW-1/2 &
01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3
respectively
3. Copy of e-mail of defendant to him dated Ex.PW-1/4
06.09.2022
4. Copies of e-mails of defendant to him dated Ex.PW-1/5
09.04.2023 and 10.04.2023
5. Copy of registration proof issued by ISBN Ex.PW-1/6
(International Standard Book Number) issued to the plaintiff dated 13.04.2023
6. Copy of e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/7 and defendant (colly from pages 42 to 103)
7. Copy of proof of reproduction of my work on Ex.PW-1/8 BPB Online.com and Amazon.in (from pages 104 to 107)
8. Copy of e-mail dated 11.05.2025 Ex.PW-1/9
9. Copy of legal notice dated 24.05.2024 and postal Ex.PW-1/10 & receipt Ex.PW1/11
10. Copy of detailed worksheet Ex.PW-1/12 (colly pages 100 to 113)
11. Copy of order dated 09.08.2023 and certificate of Ex.PW-1/13 return of plaint (colly)
12. Copy of Non-Starter Report Ex.PW-1/14
13. Certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Ex.PW-1/15 Commercial Courts Act, 2015
27. He was cross-examined at length on behalf of the defendant No.2. The cross examination of PW1 shall be discussed in detail at the later part of the judgment.
28. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Therefore, PE was closed.
29. Despite granting opportunity, defendant No.2 has CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 10 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:13 +0530 failed to lead DE and hence, the DE was closed vide order dated 09.07.2025.
30. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Naveen Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Gyanendra Kumar, Counsel for defendant No.2. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendant no.2.
31. During the course of arguments, counsels for plaintiff and defendant reiterated respective averments made in the plaint and written statement (which has already been struck off the record) and also referred to documents filed on behalf of respective parties as well as evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff.
32. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that as per the contract dated 01.09.2020, it was agreed that the sole and exclusive right to edit, annotate, introduce, enlarge, print, publish, distribute, sell and authorize others to distribute and the work in whole or in part in the form of books, e-book, online, on the web, pamphlets periodicals print on demand or any other form of printed words whatsoever will be under the name of the plaintiff and/ or other trade names as plaintiff may determine at its discretion. It has been further submitted that it was agreed by the defendant No.1 that if plaintiff decides not to publish the book, then the rights will be given back to defendant No.1 but it was mandatorily required for defendant No.1 to procure the letter in writing from plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the defendant No.1 has agreed not to write the same content for any other publication without prior written permission from its client. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is vested with the CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 11 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:21 +0530 exclusive rights of producing and publishing the work as envisaged by the Copyright Act and the defendant No.1 was specifically restrained to deliver any manuscript, photographs, photostats, maps, etc., already published or permit any other publishers to publish any material in any printed form including visual and/ or recording of sound, based on the material in the 'Work' assigned by plaintiff or which in the opinion of plaintiff was likely to injure sales of the work.
33. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff invested in the project as defendant No.1 showed inclination for it and subsequently plaintiff and defendant No.1 shared all necessary details and defendant No.1 worked on the manuscript editing and pre-publishing tasks of the book from September, 2022 till May, 2023. It has been further submitted that the defendant No.1 from time to time prepared the chapters submitted to the plaintiff for approval and proceeded towards the completion of the manuscript. It has been further submitted that the book 'Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning' was to be prepared from 18.09.2022 to 01.01.2023 and the chapters were written and the annexures were submitted and the defendant vide email dated 09.04.2023 had submitted a book proposal to the plaintiff for approval and the details of the chapters are mentioned in Para 7 of the written submission.
34. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is the copyright owner of the work or an exclusive licensee got registered 'Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning' on 13.04.2023 with Raja Ram Mohun Roy National Agency as ISBN 9789388590792 and E-ISBN 9789388590778 for the book alongwith the name of defendant No.1 as Author CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 12 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:29 +0530 and the proprietary right of the project lies with plaintiff and this work was protected by applicable copyright laws, granting exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works based on it but irresponsible act of defendant No.1 caused loss to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the defendant No.1 decided to move on with other publisher i.e. defendant No.2 and shared the manuscript against the terms of contract agreement dated 01.09.2022 signed with the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has invested Rs.11,50,000/- for the said project.
35. It has been further submitted that observing the acts of defendant No.1, plaintiff had sent an email dated 26.04.2023 informing the defendant No.1 that plaintiff is available to sell the product developed by him on all the relevant and major channels across the world and has a strength of 150 sales personnel for physical distribution and it was informed to defendant No.1 that plaintiff is legally bound to publish any content received during collaboration period by virtue of the contract that was signed at the beginning of the project. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff had informed the defendant No.1 that if the defendant No.1 does not abide by the terms, then the plaintiff shall invoke his legal rights.
36. It has been further submitted that despite all the efforts, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants published the work title 'Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning' and the published work is exactly the same as plaintiff's copyrighted work, thereby infringing upon plaintiff exclusive rights and the similarities between the two works are evident on BPB Online.com and Amazon.in against the terms of CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 13 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:35 +0530 the agreement dated 01.09.2022 with plaintiff and earning huge profit on the investment of the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that on 26.04.2023, official of the plaintiff clearly indicated that plaintiff is available to sell defendant No.1 product on all relevant and major channels across the world and have a strength of 150 sales personnel for physical distribution; that plaintiff had legally bound themselves to publish content received during collaboration period by virtue of the contract signed at the beginning of the project.
37. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff invested resources to build something meaningful and taking a step back by defendant No.1 is a loss, financially and brand success wise and the plaintiff advised defendant no. 1 to consider clauses (a), 1, 14, 15 and 16 of signed contract. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff vide email dated 11.05.2023 made formal request to defendant No.1 for publishing the content finally approved and ready for publication. It has been further submitted that the said action of defendant No.1 constitutes not only infringing activities but also constant cheating and fraud and as such there is an urgent need for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their illegal and malafide activities. It has been further submitted that the defendants had used unauthorized content, violated contracts and illegally shared the content developed with the help and investment of the plaintiff with other persons/ publisher i.e. defendant No.2 without any authorization.
38. It has been further submitted that since the defendant did not pay the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in terms of the Publishing Agreement, the plaintiff had sent a legal CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 14 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:43 +0530 notice dated 24.05.2023 to the defendants through speed post but of no avail. It has been further submitted that the complete ISBN/E-ISBN registration was submitted and the same got registered. It has been further submitted that a prior notice was given to defendant No.2 before and after publication. It has been further submitted that the electronic evidence relied upon in the present suit consists of emails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, online publication links and screenshots of infringing listings on BPB Online and Amazon and the digitally executed Publishing Agreement.
39. It has been further submitted that the legal requirement u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of electronic records is not disputed, however as per Order XI Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act governs the admissibility of electronic records in commercial disputes. It has been further submitted that printouts of electronic records are admissible only if supported by an affidavit confirming that the electronic records and their contents have not been altered and the information is an exact replica. It has been further submitted that the omission to file the certificate was procedural and curable and not deliberate. It has been further submitted that the electronic evidence is corroborative of primary contractual and statutory rights. It has been further submitted that the core rights flow from the written agreement and statutory copyright and not merely from electronic records. It has been further submitted that the evidence may not be discarded at this stage and liberty be granted to place the Section 65B certificate on record.
40. It has been further submitted that since the copyright infringement is a statutory tort under Sections 51 and 55 of the CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 15 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:52 +0530 Copyright Act, the book with ISBN/E-ISBN registration by the plaintiff establishes the proof of publication and ownership and the registration provides prima facie evidence of ownership and publication. It has been further submitted that the registered works are protected under the Copyright Act and thus, the plaintiff seeks statutory remedies as a Statutory Protection and it does not claim copyright merely on the basis of ISBN/E-ISBN registration as it arises automatically upon the creation of any literary work (as per Sections 13 & 17 of the Copyright Act). It has been further submitted that the reliance on termination dated 25.04.2023 by defendant No.2 cannot be sustained as accrued rights and prior investments survive termination. It has been further submitted that termination cannot legalize a prior breach and thus, the defendant No.1 had no authority to license defendant No.2 during the subsistence of plaintiff's exclusivity and the defendant No.2's publication remains ex facie illegal.
41. It has been further submitted that defendant No.2's reliance on Deshmukh & Co. v. Avinash Khandekar (2005) case was misconceived which held that an agreement amounts to a licence only where exclusivity, worldwide rights, and transfer of control are absent. It has been further submitted that as the plaintiff's rights are exclusive and worldwide, the Author is contractually restrained from third-party publication and the plaintiff also bore the commercial risk and investment. It has been further submitted that as Section 18 explicitly permits assignment of copyright in future works taking effect upon creation, defendant No.2's own publication conclusively proves that defendant No.2 published without authorization. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff does not seek specific CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 16 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:43:59 +0530 performance of a determinable contract and the reliefs sought are statutory injunction and damages under the Copyright Act which are independent of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, the objection regarding jurisdiction to grant declaration is misconceived.
42. It has been further submitted that the present suit is a commercial dispute involving exploitation of Copyright, Publishing and Licensing Rights and Commercial Investment exceeding the statutory threshold and this Court has jurisdiction u/s 2(1)(c) & Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which expressly empowers Civil Courts to grant injunctions, damages and declarations. It has been further submitted that the declaration sought is incidental and consequential to the enforcement of statutory copyright and not a bare declaratory suit u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, this Court is fully competent to grant the reliefs, prayed for.
43. It has been further submitted that since after the termination dated 25.04.2023 the defendant No.1 regaining printing rights is legally untenable on the grounds that termination does not divest the plaintiff of his accrued rights and rights already assigned and acted upon survive termination. It has been further submitted that the agreement also clearly restrained defendant No.1 from republishing the same or substantially similar content or licensing as well as sharing the manuscript with the third parties without prior permission of the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the defendant's acts amount to deliberate commercial exploitation of plaintiff's copyrighted work, warranting injunction and damages. It has CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 17 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:05 +0530 been further submitted that the defendant No.1 breached exclusivity and defendant No.2 knowingly exploited the breach for commercial gain. It has been further submitted that the averments made in plaint have been proved by PW1 and it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be decreed. Reliance is placed on behalf of the plaintiff upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as Time Warner Entertainment Co. vs. RPG Netcom. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 226 case;
(ii) In case titled as Nand Kishore vs. DDA, RFA No. 240/2017, CM No. 19118/2021.
44. Per contra, Counsel for the defendant No.2 has contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the plaint discloses no independent cause of action against defendant No.2 and the dispute, if any, arises solely out of a contract dated 01.09.2022 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was never a party to the said agreement and therefore, there is no privity of contract as well. It has been further submitted that the said agreement dated 01.09.2022 has already been terminated by defendant No.1 on 25.04.2023 before its completion and publication of the book and this material fact was suppressed by the plaintiff, however, the same got revealed during the cross-examination of PW1 who admitted that the said termination email is not placed on record.
45. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff who is relying on the agreement dated 01.09.2022 has failed to bring on record a signed copy of the said agreement and hence failed to discharge its burden. It has been further submitted that after the termination of the agreement dated 01.09.2022, the manuscript CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 18 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:12 +0530 was independently and lawfully provided by its rightful owner i.e. defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. It has been further submitted that it is an admitted fact that plaintiff has neither placed on record the manuscript/book allegedly published by them and/or the copy of the book published by defendant No.2 for which he is claiming infringement of copyright. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the alleged expenses of Rs.11,50,000/- incurred by it as claimed in the plaint as admittedly the plaintiff has not placed even a single document to prove the expenses. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has also failed to adduce any evidence in order to discharge its onus towards its goodwill which was claimed to the tune of 20,00,000/-. It has been further submitted that PW1 authorized by Board Resolution dated 15.07.2023 does not hold the authority to depose or appear as a witness in cross- examination and accordingly the plaintiff's alleged attempt to label legitimate publishing as "fraud" is unsustainable. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has used clever drafting to camouflage the fact that no cause of action has arisen against defendant No. 2 and hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action.
46. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has come to this Court with a studied attempt to mislead by withholding the material fact that defendant No.1/ author, duly terminated the alleged agreement, if any, dated 01.09.2022 vide termination notice/ email dated 25.04.2023 Ex.PW-1/D1 which goes to the root of the maintainability of this suit. It has been further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff neither placed on record the said termination email nor disclosed CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 19 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:19 +0530 this fact anywhere in his pleading and thus, upon such termination, plaintiff ceased to have any enforceable right against any defendants, much less against defendant No.2.
47. It has been further submitted that PW1, upon a question asked from him during his cross examination, has testified that it is correct that email at page no.43 (Part of Ex.PW-1/7) (colly) was sent by the plaintiff in response to email dated 25.04.2023 sent by defendant No.1, whereby he had terminated the agreement dated 01.09.2022. It has been further submitted that PW1 has further testified that he has not placed on record the copy of e-mail dated 25.04.2023 sent by defendant No.1 and voluntarily stated that it was not addressed to him. It has been further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that a party who approaches the Court must do so with candour and good faith. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff's case is based on falsehood and it has no right to approach the Court and should be summarily thrown out as it is an established fact that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
48. It has been further submitted that under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author is the first owner of copyright unless expressly assigned in writing. It has been further submitted that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was determinable and never culminated into a valid assignment as the work was not fully delivered and consequently, defendant No.1 retained all rights and was entitled to grant publishing rights to defendant No.2. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 20 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:25 +0530 is claiming assignment of copyright by way of the agreement dated 01.09.2022, however in view of section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the said contention of the plaintiff is not maintainable as section 18 clearly stipulates that in the case of assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work actually comes into existence. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff's reliance on the agreement dated 01.09.2022 as an assignment of copyright is misplaced since the alleged work never came into existence or was delivered to the plaintiff.
49. It has been further submitted that defendant No.2 entered into a separate agreement with defendant No.1 dated 25.04.2023 wherein the author warranted that he was free to deal with his manuscript and the defendant No.2 relied on such warranties in good faith and published the work lawfully and there was no connivance, fraud or infringement. It has been further submitted that the agreement in question which was signed by defendant No.1 does not contain any termination clause and the absence of such a clause in effect meant that the plaintiff was seeking to bind the defendant No.1 to an arrangement that could continue indefinitely. It has been further submitted that mere absence of a termination clause cannot lead to the inference that the contract is perpetual and on the contrary, the absence of a termination clause together with the absence of any stipulation as regards duration thereof would lead to the conclusion that the contract is terminable at will by either party. It has been further submitted that the termination of the present agreement by defendant No.1 is valid in law and cannot be said to be wrongful.
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 21 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:32 +0530
50. It has been further submitted that the nature of the consideration under the agreement also makes it clear that there was no assignment of copyright in favour of the plaintiff and it is an established fact that the agreement stipulates that defendant No.1 was to receive payment only in the form of royalties instead of downright payment and it is wholly inconsistent with an outright assignment of copyright where ownership of copyright is transferred absolutely in exchange for a lump-sum consideration. It has been further submitted that the said agreement would be more of a license to sell and publish. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is seeking to compel defendant No.1 not only to assign publishing rights exclusively to the plaintiff but also to restrain defendant No.1 from assigning such rights to defendant No.2 and this relief is claimed on the basis of an alleged agreement which admittedly already stands terminated. It has been further submitted that such an attempt to force the author and rightful owner of the subject work to assign publishing and printing rights solely to the plaintiff is contrary to law and wholly unsustainable.
51. It has been further submitted that the present suit is barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in as much as it is a well-settled proposition that contracts which are in their nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff under the garb of mandatory injunction is seeking specific performance of a determinable contract which is impermissible in law. It has been further submitted that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are barred in law and on this ground alone, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. It has been further submitted that the present suit is a CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 22 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:40 +0530 gross abuse of the process of law instituted by the plaintiff without any legal or factual foundation and therefore, it is prayed on behalf of defendant No.2 that the present suit may kindly be dismissed with costs, for being frivolous and not maintainable.
52. Apart from these arguments, in additional written submissions it has also been submitted that in a determinable contract, specific performance is barred U/s 14 of the Specific Relief Act, that damages cannot be awarded without pleading and proof of actual loss and electronic evidence cannot be admitted for want of Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and that a relief cannot be granted against a particular defendant if no relief is sought for against it in the pleadings and prayers. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on behalf of the defendant upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366;
(ii) In case titled as DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs. DRS Dilip Roadlines (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors., 2011 SCC Online 3780;
(iii) In case titled as Dalip Singh vs. State of UP, (2010) 2 SCC 114;
(iv) Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P & Other and Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. & Ors. Vs. RPG Netcom Globe & Ors. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 759;
(v) In case titled as Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Annapurna Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 17;
(vi) In case titled as Deshmukh & Co. (Publishers) Pvt.
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 23 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11
Ltd. vs. Avinash Vishnu Khandekar, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 566;
(vii) In case titled as New Central Book Agency Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Smt. Madhusri Konar & Ors. (2014) SCC Online Cal 18353;
(viii) In case titled as Ghh Bumi Mining Services Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3753;
(ix) In case titled as Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. Vs. The Stroh Brewery Company, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 481;
(x) In case titled as UOI Vs. Krishna Constructions Company, (2025) 316 DLT 291;
(xi) In case titled as Sudershan Kumar Bhayana Thr Lrs.
Vs. Vinod Seth Thr. Lrs. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6097;
(xii) In case titled as Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Emirates Trading Agency LLC (2017) 13 SCC 243;
(xiii) In case titled as Arjun Panditro Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1.
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
53. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have also perused the record as well as the written submissions/ additional written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
54. Issues have not been framed in this case.
55. In the present case, the opportunity to file written statement on behalf of defendant No.1 was closed vide order dated 24.07.2024 and the WS filed on behalf of defendant No.2 CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 24 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:54 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as contesting defendant) was taken off the record vide order dated 18.09.2024 with the observation that it was not filed within 120 days from the date of service. Therefore, in absence of any pleading on behalf of the defendants denying the contents of the plaint, no issue was framed.
56. Thus, in absence of any WS, there is no issue of admission of any facts and the cross examination of PW1 was conducted on behalf of defendant No.2 only in order to prove the case of the contesting defendant. The legal submissions have been raised as discussed herein above on behalf of the contesting defendant.
57. In order to better appreciation of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in factual matrix of the present case, the point of determination arises as under:-
(i) Whether there was any legally enforceable contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 vide agreement dated 01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3;
(ii) That the agreement Ex.PW1/3 cannot be read into evidence for want of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act being legally inadmissible;
(iii) Whether the plaintiff had no copyright qua the book to be published by the plaintiff in terms of the agreement Ex.PW1/3 and in consequent thereto, there was no infringement of any copyright;
(iv) Whether the agreement in question being a contract which is in its nature determinable;
(v) Whether there was no cause of action against the contesting defendant;
(vi) Whether the relief prayed in the plaint are specific
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 25 /41
Devendra Digitally signed
by Devendra
Kumar Kumar Sharma
Date: 2026.02.11
Sharma 16:45:01 +0530
and clear capable to be granted/ allowed.
58. Even beyond the scope of arguments raised on behalf of the parties, one other point of determination would be whether the alleged agreement is so dependent on the personal qualification of the defendant No.1 that the Court cannot impose specific performance of its material terms and if so, what may be the alternative relief for the plaintiff.
59. It is a cardinal principle of law in a civil suit that the party who asserts a fact has to prove it by leading cogent evidence in terms of section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act which is reproduced as under for the ready reference:-
"Section 101: Burden of proof.--Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
60. Further, in order to prove a case, the law is clear that any particular fact is to be proved by the person who wishes that particular fact to be in existence and that should be believed by the Court to be in existence and for ready reference, section 103 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
"Section 103: The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person."
61. The burden of proof to make an evidence available lies on the person who wishes to give evidence and for ready reference, the relevant provision under section 104 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
"Section 104: The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 26 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:45:09 +0530 evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence."
62. Lastly, it is also cardinal principle of evidence that a fact specifically within the knowledge of any person is to be proved by that person and for ready reference, the relevant provision under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
"Section 106: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
63. Further, it is the cardinal principle of law that a civil suit is to be decided on the principle of probability and in this regard, reliance may be placed upon para 41 of the judgment in case titled as Nand Kishore vs. DDA, RFA No. 240/2017, CM No. 19118/2021, decided on 29.11.2021 which is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
"13. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit before the trial court in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit for injunction, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. As held in Raj Kumar Singh &Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla. reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418. "A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. In the case of Vishnu Putt Sharma Vs. Dava Sapra. reported in (2009) 13 see 729. the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
"8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis- a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 27 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:45:16 +0530 on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "
preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
14. Section 101 of the Evidence Act. 1872 defines "burden of proof" and laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. In view of Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any particular person. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. As held in judgment reported as Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri Shankar Jalan. AIR 2007 Gau. 20. admission in the written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. In view of this legal position of the Evidence Act, it is clear that it is for the appellant to prove that he has right, title or interest in the suit property.
18. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held:-
"Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of "proved", " disproved" and" not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving- his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title. The present case CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 28 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:45:23 +0530 being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of this Court the plaintiff has succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case."
64. In the light of above discussed principle of law and relevant provisions of law, now it is to be seen as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in plaint i.e. of declaration, permanent injunction and a decree for a sum of Rs.20 lacs alongwith decree of rendition of accounts alongwith handing over the profit and pendente lite interest as per RBI guidelines.
65. In the factual matrix of the present case, the first and foremost point to be decided is as to whether there was any legally enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and as to whether the agreement relied upon Ex.PW1/3 is inadmissible in evidence for want of proper authentication by proving the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
66. In its pleading and evidence led through PW1, the reliance has been placed upon the document Ex.PW1/3 (colly). Ex.PW1/3 is bunch of documents allegedly printout/ downloaded copy consisting of author information sheet, agreement dated 01.09.2022 (running into 09 pages) including the alleged signature upon the agreement through web application. Thus, all CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 29 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 these documents are computer printout/ downloaded copy of the documents which as per law are to be proved by proving the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the correctness of their contents. The documents Ex.PW1/3 is stated to be the documents which gave rise to the right of the plaintiff for world wide copyright in English and other languages including all types of printed, electronic format, e-books, IOS Apps, kinder, android apps and all other e-platforms on an exclusive basis for the manuscript/ work titled as "Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning".
67. During the arguments, it has been submitted that the agreement running from page No.30 to page No.37 of the paperbook was digitally signed through web app vide documents titled as sign Now placed at page No.38 of the paperbook.
68. Section 67A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the mode of proof of an electronic signature and for ready reference, same is reproduced as under:-
"Except in the case of a secure digital signature, if the digital signature of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such digital signature is the digital signature of the subscriber must be proved."
69. In the present case, there is no pleading that the agreement Ex.PW1/3 was executed through web Sign. In the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A of PW1, there is no mention that as to how this agreement was executed between the parties and who had been the signatory of said agreement. During the course of arguments, it was argued that the agreement was signed through sign Now web application. However, in the entire testimony of PW1 there is no deposition to the effect that CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 30 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:45:40 +0530 as to who signed on behalf of the plaintiff. Perusal of the documents reveals that the email ID was used in the name of Partha Majumbar/ defendant No.1 and by one Vidit on behalf of the plaintiff but there is no such averment in the pleadings nor there is any evidence in the testimony of PW1 regarding the web signature/ electronic signature on behalf of the parties.
70. Further, in the present case admittedly no certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been proved in order to authenticate the correctness of electronic documents including the email dated 01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/2, agreement in question Ex.PW1/3, copy of email dated 06.01.2022 Ex.PW1/4, copy of email dated 09.04.2023 and 10.04.2023 Ex.PW1/5, copy of the registration proof Ex.PW1/6, copy of emails Ex.PW1/7 and other electronic records in the form of downloaded copy/ emails Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/12.
71. Though it has been argued that a certificate U/o XI Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act has been proved as Ex.PW1/15 and prayer has been made to give opportunity to prove the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act else to treat the documents proved as per law in absence of any dispute on behalf of the defendants and in absence of any rebuttal pleadings. However, the issue of giving opportunity to prove the certificate does not arise ipso facto in the hands of the Court and matter is at the stage of evidence since 06.11.2024 and even this issue has already been raised at the time of oral final arguments but no step was taken in order to seek any proper remedy. Therefore, it appears that this argument has been raised in order to dispel the adverse statutory presumption arising against the plaintiff for want of filing of proper certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 31 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:45:47 +0530 Act. The certificate relied upon as Ex.PW1/15 is in no way a substitute of the statutory requirement of filing certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to prove the authenticity of electronic evidence as the format and contents of both the certificates are different one. Further, in the entire certificate Ex.PW1/15, there is no mention of any details of the computer, date of downloading the printouts, details of the documents, details of the website and in absence of any such details, even this certificate renders no help to the plaintiff even if it is treated to be substitute of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
72. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Anwar P.V. Vs. P. K. Bhasheer, Air 2015 SC 180 has delved upon admissibility of printouts of the documents by observing as under:-
"13. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2)."
"14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 32 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:45:54 +0530 electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device."
73. The issue of filing of Certificate U/s 65B of the Act also came up for consideration before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MGR Enterprises & Ors, CRL.L.P. 344/2019 decided on 24 th May, 2019. While referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anvar P.V. (supra), following observations were made:-
"17. Further, the petitioner company has placed on record the customer/ledger statement of account of the respondent firm maintained by them from 1st January 2011 to 30th November 2011 in order to show the liability. The same has been produced in the form of a computer printout which is a secondary evidence of the electronic record of data purportedly stored in the computer of the petitioner company. The petitioner company has not provided a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to prove the same and hence the ledger is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no objection was raised qua the mode of proof at the time of exhibiting the copies of the ledger account and the same are duly exhibited, proved and admissible in evidence. This contention of learned counsel deserves to be rejected as in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act a computer generated document is inadmissible in evidence.
18. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision Anvar P.V. (supra) wherein it was held that a computer generated document would be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible."CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 33 /41 Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:46:01 +0530
74. It was thus concluded:-
"19. Legal position on the point is thus well settled that is if the document is otherwise inadmissible for want of a certificate or any other requirement of law, it being exhibited in the course of trial does not make the document admissible in law and though an objection as to the mode of proof can be waived off and should be taken at the first instance, however the objection as to the admissibility of a document which goes to the root of the matter can be taken at any stage. Supreme Court in the decision reported as R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) held:
"20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1457] in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 34 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:46:07 +0530 about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court."
75. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the very basis and foundation of the case that there was legally enforceable contract between the parties in the form of Ex.PW1/3 could not be proved by way of evidence and therefore, the very foundation of the case regarding the entitlement of any of the relief in favour of the plaintiff could not be proved in the testimony of PW1 on preponderance of probability.
76. Further, even if it is assumed that vide Ex.PW1/3 there was any legally enforceable contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, it has been proved in the testimony of PW1 himself that the said contract was terminated vide e-mail dated 25.04.2023 Ex.PW1/D1. PW1 in his testimony has admitted that the said email was in the knowledge of PW1 and it was not filed on record and therefore, it can be safely held in view of his admission that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands disclosing all the relevant and material facts in view of the admission of PW1 that the said email has not CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 35 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:46:14 +0530 been referred in the plaint or any other document. Thus, once the agreement has been cancelled, now question arises as to whether this agreement was liable to be terminated or not.
77. In the present case, the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was for writing a book and there was some alleged terms and conditions for payment of royalty. Perusal of Ex.PW1/3 reveals that there was no termination clause between the parties. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in case titled as Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Annapurna Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 17 relied upon by the defendant, it can be safely held that the present agreement by nature was determinable and in this regard, relevant para No. 35 is reproduced as under:-
"There is no provision in the contract for the Artist to terminate the contract, the right of termination has been provided only to the plaintiff company. However, the contract being a commercial contract between the two private parties for mutual gain and benefit, it cannot be stated that the Artist could not terminate the aforesaid contract. Once the parties have lost mutual trust and confidence in each other, the Court cannot grant an injunction compelling the Artist to continue with its contractual obligations with the plaintiff company. Therefore, the contract being determinable in nature, is not enforceable in view of Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963."
78. Further, the writing of book is solely dependent upon the personal qualification of the defendant No.1 and therefore, defendant No.1 cannot be forced to specifically perform the material terms of the contract/ agreement Ex.PW1/3 if the books have not already been written.
79. Therefore, now it is to be seen as to whether the book in question was already written and published and as to CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 36 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:46:21 +0530 whether the terms of agreement regarding the future updation of the book can be ordered to be specifically performed by the defendant No.1 or not.
80. Though it is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that the book was already complete and it was about to publish, when the defendant no.1 has refused to perform his part of contract and for the purposes of publication even the copyright has already been obtained by the plaintiff by way of registering it with ISBN vide document Ex.PW1/6.
81. However, this claim of the plaintiff appears to be incorrect from the record as well as evidence led so far on behalf of the plaintiff. In the email dated 20.05.2023, which is part of Ex.PW1/3 in response to the email dated 24.04.2023 wherein it was stated by one of the official of the plaintiff company i.e. Senior Content Development Editor, that she rechecked Chapter 1 and have added a comment with the request to share the front matter and preface for the book, it was replied that "I was going to wait until the chapters have been fully finalized - I may still want to add or changes some of the images/ code files.........". Thus, this email even itself shows that even by 20.05.2023 the alleged book was not in existence publication of which according to the plaintiff has already been completed.
82. Further, in the testimony of PW1, it has come on record that the complete manuscript was handed over by defendant no.1 as per the agreement and he has denied the suggestion that no such manuscript was handed over. However, when he was confronted regarding the filing of such document i.e. cover design and the layout of the book which was already CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 37 /41 Devendra Digitally signed by Devendra Kumar Kumar Sharma Date: 2026.02.11 Sharma 16:46:29 +0530 prepared, he replied that he cannot recall filing of any such document on record. This testimony of PW1 itself shows that he has avoided the reply of the direct question. As a matter of record, there is no such document placed on record to show that the cover design of the book in question was already prepared. Even as discussed in the abovesaid email, there is discussion of finalization of cover design and after about 2 years of the said email, the witness PW1 has deposed against his own record placed in the judicial file of non-preparation of cover design.
83. Further, PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that no hard copies or soft copies of the attachments in the emails or any document or material prepared by the plaintiff for advertising and marketing have been placed on record. Thus, this admission on the part of PW1 itself shows that the book was not complete by the time alleged contract was terminated on behalf of the defendant no.1.
84. Further, PW1 has claimed that the plaintiff had sent the book for printing on all global printing partners but he himself admitted that no such document has been placed on record.
85. Further, PW1 has claimed that plaintiff has released the book in question in the market for sale but he himself admitted that he has not filed the copy of the said book for which he is claiming infringement of copyright. Further, it has been claimed by PW1 that the publication by the defendant no.2 was later in point of time after the publication by plaintiff but when he was asked to show any documents, he failed to produce any such documents about his claim of listing on amazon by the CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 38 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 plaintiff.
86. PW1 has denied that it was only publishing rights and not the copyright was there with him. However, in this regard it may be noted that U/s 18 of the Copyright Act, the assignment of copyright would be only there once the assigned work is complete. In the present case, the book as discussed herein- above was never complete for the purposes of publication and more so the registration with ISBN cannot be told to be a copyright registration.
87. On the issue of damages, when PW1 was cross- examined, he has claimed that total Rs.11,50,000/- as expenses has been shown in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A but he himself has admitted that he has not filed any document to show the said expenses incurred by the plaintiff. As per record, there is no document placed on record regarding any kind of expenses except email exchanges that too after the termination of the contract for the publication of the book which appears to be also an afterthought as once the contract has been terminated according to the plaintiff himself, there was no occasion for him to make arrangement for the publication of the book in question. Further, even as per communication placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff, the writing of the book was not complete, therefore, in such circumstances, claim of expenses and that too without any documentary proof or oral evidence of receiving of any amount paid/sent for the purposes of publication/preparation of book, appears to be without any basis. Further, the claim of damages against the goodwill is there but there is no evidence on record in what manner and upto what extent the goodwill of the plaintiff got damaged because of non-publication of the present CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 39 /41 Devendra Digitally signed by Devendra Kumar Kumar Sharma Date: 2026.02.11 Sharma 16:46:43 +0530 book when his claim of listing the selling the book on amazon was found unsubstantiated.
88. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case on preponderance of probability. Thus, it can be safely held as under:-
(i) There was no legally enforceable contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 vide agreement dated 01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3;
(ii) That the agreement Ex.PW1/3 cannot be read into evidence for want of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act being legally inadmissible;
(iii) That there was no copyright qua the book to be published by the plaintiff in terms of the agreement Ex.PW1/3 and in consequent thereto, there was no infringement of any copyright;
(iv) That the agreement in question being a contract which was in its nature determinable;
(v) That there was no cause of action against the contesting defendant;
89. In consequence to the abovesaid findings, it is held as under that :-
(i) Plaintiff has failed to prove of his exclusive ownership of the copyright over the book "Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning" within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act in terms of Agreement dated 01.09.2022, Ex.PW1/3.
(ii) That the plaintiff has not approached this Court with CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 40 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11 16:46:49 +0530 clean hands and further no ground for permanent injunction could be made out for publication and circulation of the abovesaid book against the defendants.
(iii) That plaintiff has not pleaded specifically as to how many expenses was incurred by plaintiff and how much amount is against the infringement of copyright/goodwill and therefore, plaintiff cannot be held entitled for any decree of Rs.20 lakhs.
(iv) Since it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for any kind of declaration or injunction qua the alleged copyright in favour of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff cannot be held to be entitled for any kind of rendition of account or handing over of the profit or for grant of any other relief.
R E L I E F:-
90. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit and its suit is accordingly dismissed.
91. In the circumstances discussed hereinabove, parties to bear their own costs.
92. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
93. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Dictated and pronounced Kumar Kumar Sharma Date:
in the open Court on Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:57 +0530
11th Day of February, 2026.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 41 /41