Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Ram Jethmalani vs Subramaniam Swamy on 3 January, 2006
6.13 Malice is also borne out of the fact that Ms. Sivasundari Bose
has also acted with defamatory intent to bring down Mr. David
Davidar's public image and reputation in the eyes of the literary world
and the general public, by making utterly false statements publicly
that Mr. David Davidar had copied Sivasundari's Book, maliciously
and without any cause. Ms. Sivasundari Bose even defamed Mr.
David Davidar in front of Chitra Banerji Divakaruni, who is an author
and a public figure, as well as Ms. Beulah Shekhar, National General
Secretary of YWCA. Since Ms. Sivasundari Bose has made false
statements to third parties maligning the reputation of Mr. David
Davidar, Ms. Sivasundari Bose is liable for defamation.
6.14 A charge of plagiarism can destroy the credibility, honour and
reputation of a writer/publisher in and outside the literary world and it
is even worse when the same is false and thus defamatory. A good
name is worth more than good riches as has been held in the judgment
of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300.
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser India Limited on 31 January, 2014
6.16 Mr. David Davidar is entitled to compensatory damages for the
damage to his reputation, mental agony and suffering, hurt and
humiliation, many years in litigation and the fact that there can be
nothing worse for an author than a false charge of plagiarism.
Moreover, the fact that Ms. Sivasundari Bose has repeatedly defamed
the author and continued to do so even during the pendency of the
dispute makes Mr. David Davidar entitled to exemplary damages. It
has been held in Hindustan Unilever (supra) that where the
disparaging content was shown repeatedly, and with an aim to
denigrate the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, punitive and
exemplary damages are warranted.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. And Film And Shot And ... vs Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 27 March, 2003
Surprisingly, Mr. David Davidar waited for years
but he spurred into action as soon as a ready-made manuscript is
handed over to him and sets about writing at a furious pace, a book set
in the same region, in the same period of time, revolving around the
same class of people beset by the same problems of class division.
David's Book is a crafty manipulation of material in hand to produce
a tome. Characterization is the essence of literature.
7.16 Mr. David Davidar has committed gross injustice to Ms.
Sivasundari Bose by defrauding her by misusing her manuscript and
copying its theme, presentation, structure and characterization, using
the same social and political issues, to produce his own book, and has
debased his position as a publisher by appropriating for his own use,
the manuscript entrusted to him by Ms. Sivasundari Bose, thus
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 31 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13
committing breach of trust/confidence, reliance in this regard has been
placed on the judgments in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial
Communications Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 695 and Kapil Chopra
Vs. Kunal Deshmukh and Others, 2013 (I) Mh.L.J. 343.
7.17 Ms. Sivasundari Bose sent the Legal Notice to Mr. David
Davidar claiming that David's Book had been copied from the
manuscript of Sivasundari's Book and the acts of Mr. David Davidar
amounted to copyright infringement. Mr. David Davidar sent a reply
to the Legal Notice dated 01.06.2011 ("Reply to the Legal Notice")
wherein Mr. David Davidar denied the claims of Ms. Sivasundari
Bose and stated that he will be proceeding with a Suit for defamation
if the baseless allegations against Mr. David Davidar continued. On
28.07.2011, Ms. Sivasundari Bose sent Mr. David Davidar a response
to the Reply to the Legal Notice stating that she will be filing a Suit
before the Court for copyright infringement.
Satya Jain(D) & Ors vs Anis Ahmed Rushdie(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 December, 2012
7.24 Mr. David Davidar did not produce his passport but filed an
affidavit dated 04.04.2013 stating that he had been living abroad from
03.01.2004 to 31.12.2010. Mr. David Davidar also stated that he
visited India once a year but neither disclosed the dates of his alleged
visits to India nor did he produce any documentary evidence of the
same. Thus, whether January / March 2002, the date of publication of
David's Book as disclosed by Mr. David Davidar, or the date of Ms.
Sivasundari Bose's knowledge of the infringement by Mr. David
Davidar in August 2003, is taken to be the date of accrual of cause of
action, after excluding the period 03.01.2004 to 31.12.2010 when Mr.
David Davidar was admittedly absent from India. Therefore, the Suit,
CS(COMM) 581/2024 filed on 29.08.2011, is well within the
limitation period of three years. The period for which a defendant is
outside India can be excluded from the period of limitation, as has
been held by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Satya Jain
(Dead) Through LRS. and Others v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead)
Through LRS.
P.C.K. Muthiah Chettiar & Ors vs V.E.S. Shanmugham Chettiar & Anr on 26 July, 1968
11. Upon a perusal of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act and the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Satya Jain (supra) and PC.K. Muthia
Chettiar (supra) there is no cavil that the present case falls within the
exception of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act and the period that Mr.
David Davidar was living abroad ought to be excluded while computing the
period of limitation and therefore, CS(COMM) 581/2024 filed by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose is held to have been filed within the limitation period.