Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal impugns an interim injunction dated 15.04.2017 restraining the appellant from printing, publishing, offering for sale, selling or otherwise dealing, directly or indirectly, question Papers of ICSE Class-X Examinations.

2. The facts of the case are that, the respondent had purchased the copyrights of question papers for the years 2015, 2016 & 2017 for all subject of ICSE Class-X Examinations for an amount of Rs. 1.35 crores. The respondent's publication was titled: "Examination Question Papers ICSE March 2006 (under arrangement with) The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations New Delhi" (all rights reserved). The book was priced at Rs. 25. It only had question papers with no model answers or any guidance to answering them.

25. The further objection of the defendant no.1 is that provisions of Section 17(l)(dd) and 54(b) have no application to the present case in as much as the alleged works are not Government works. It is further argued that no particulars are given as to what is the Constitution of defendant no.3 and who are the members and if they are from the Government of Delhi or Central Government.
26. It is an admitted fact on behalf of defendant no.3 that defendant no. 3 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and recognized under Delhi Education Act as a Statutory body to conduct the examination at par with CBSE and has been constituted to conduct examinations of ICSE and ISC Board and as such covered under definition of Sections 17(dd) of the Copyright Act, 1957. From the averments of defendant no.3 it is evident that defendant no.3 is discharging public function of conducting examination under Delhi Education Act 1973 and thus it has to be considered as public authority. Since defendant no.3 falls under Public Authority, hence Section 17(dd) of Copyright Act applies to it and as per the aforesaid act in case of a work made or first published by or under the directions or control of any public undertaking such public undertaking shall in the absence of any agreement to the contrary shall deem as the first owner of the copyright therein. The plea of plaintiff to the aforesaid objection that if a private body is discharging public function it has to be considered as public authority. This contention of plaintiff is further fortified with case law titled as Rupender Kashyap Vs. Jiwan Publishing.
The law laid down in Rupender Kashyap case , it is held that if there is a copyright in the question paper, the publishing answer book using such question papers, will amount to infringement of copyright.
29. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has prima facie established a case for interim injunction in his favour in view of aforementioned observations and balance of convenience lies in the favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has shown the irreparable loss that is caused to him if the interim injunction is not granted. Consequently, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff is allowed. Defendant no. 1 and 2 by themselves, through their agents, servants, dealers, stockiest, representatives, sellers, distributors and all other persons acting on their behalf are restrained from printing, publishing, offering for sale, selling or otherwise dealing, directly or indirectly, in "Examination Question Papers for ICSE Class-X Examinations" conducted by defendant no.3 till the disposal of the suit.

10. Referring to the offending book by the publisher, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that even certain portions of the syllabus which were excluded from the examination, were identically reproduced by the defendant publisher. In other words, the publisher based his entire case on the question papers of the ICSE Board. These question papers were acquired for a monetary amount of Rs. 1.35 crores and the defendant has sought protection from infringement of its rights.

11. The appellant/infringing publisher has published question papers with answers, in the same sequence with commas and full stops in the guidebook as the rights have been purchased by respondent no. 2 - ICSE and has not produced any additional module questions to be attempted by or suggested for the reader. There is a near reproduction of the question papers purchased by the respondent/plaintiff. This is an infringement of the copyright in the question papers purchased by the respondent for which an injunction ought to be granted and it has been so done. For the above reason, the contentions of the appellant are untenable.