9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of authority for publishing. 2. Right to sue. 3. Infringement of copyright. 4. Ownership of copyright. 5. Maintainability of the suit. 6. Non-joinder of necessary parties. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Authority for Publishing: The trial court found that Basant Kumar, defendant No. 3, permitted the printing, publishing, and sale of 3,000 copies of the book SAPNA. However, defendants 1 and 2 exceeded their rights and committed infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright. The court decreed an injunction restraining Basant Kumar from using and licensing the right of printing and publishing the books SAPNA and others. 2. Right to Sue: The trial court held that the plaintiffs had the right to restrain the defendants from printing, publishing, and selling the books. The plea that the suit was not maintainable due to non-registration of copyright under Section 44 of the Indian Copyright Act was repelled. The court emphasized that non-registration of copyright by the plaintiffs or the original author, R. N. Tripathi, could not bar the filing of the present suit. It was also held that one co-owner or co-sharer could bring a suit against another co-sharer for the infringement of copyright. 3. Infringement of Copyright: The trial court found that defendants 1 and 2 had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs by printing and publishing the book SAPNA without proper authorization. The court decreed the suit and issued an injunction restraining the defendants from further infringement. The defendants were also directed to render accounts of the books. 4. Ownership of Copyright: The plaintiffs claimed exclusive copyright in the books SAPNA and PATHIK, among others, written by their father, Ram Naresh Tripathi. The court held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were indeed owners of the copyright, and Basant Kumar had no right to give the license to print the same to defendants 1 and 2. 5. Maintainability of the Suit: The appellants argued that the suit was not maintainable due to the non-registration of copyright. However, the court held that registration under Section 44 of the Indian Copyright Act was not mandatory for the enforcement of copyright. The court referred to several judgments, including those from the Madras and Calcutta High Courts, which supported the view that an author acquires a copyright in his work regardless of registration, and non-registration does not disable the owner from bringing an infringement action. 6. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: The appellants argued that the suit was liable to be dismissed due to the non-joinder of the minor son of Basant Kumar as a party. The court found that since the will dated 19-4-56 executed by Pt. Ram Naresh Tripathi had not been proved, the question of non-joinder did not arise. The court held that non-joinder of Vijai Kumar did not affect the merits of the case and was inconsequential. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the trial court's judgment and decree were upheld. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
|
