Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Whether the suit is premature?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction prayed for?

5. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court has held that assignment of the copy right is not proved; that oral assignment is not permissible in the light of the provision contained in Sec. 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The trial court has also held that as the defendant tried to assert that the copy-right was assigned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to seek the relief, and as such the suit was not premature. Consequently, in the light of the findings recorded on issues 1 and 2, the trial court has decreed the suit.

8. The trial court has held that the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff orally agreed to assign the copy-right is not proved. There is only an oral evidence of the defendant in support of his case of oral agreement which it denied by the plaintiff. There is no evidence on record which can persuade us to come to the conclusion different from the one arrived at by the trial court and hold that the oral agreement is proved. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the oral agreement is not proved, is correct and deserves to be confirmed. Even otherwise, considering this case on the basis that the defendant has proved the oral agreement between himself and the plaintiff under which the plaintiff agreed to assign the copy-right of the book in question to the defendant, still the question that necessarily arises for consideration is as to whether such an oral agreement is permissible and valid in law. Section 18 of the Act provides for "Assignment of copyright". It reads thus :

"19(1) No assignment of the copy right in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor or by his duly authorised agent.

2) The assignment of the copyright in any work shall, among other thing indicate clearly the right proposed to be assigned and the size of the work."

9. Thus from the aforesaid provisions contained in S. 19 of the Act, it is clear that assignment of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent. In addition to this, the assignment must in clear terms state the rights proposed to be assigned and the size of the work. No other mode of assignment is valid inasmuch as when the statute specifically provides that assignment of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor, no other mode of assignment such as oral assignment (sic) is neither permissible nor it is valid. In fact sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act in categorical terms states that no assignment of the copy right in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent.

10. In the instant case, the assignment set up by the defendant is an oral assignment. Therefore, in the light of the provision contained in Section 19 of the Act, it is invalid and it is impermissible in law.

11. We may also point out here that S. 19A of the Act provides for settlement of disputes relating to assignment of copyright and that section will come into play only when there is an assignment of copyright in accordance with S. 19 of the Act, in other words the assignment is in writing and signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent. So in the instant case, as there is no assignment in writing as per S. 19 of the Act, Section 19A cannot be held to operate and bar the suit. Accordingly, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative.