Delhi High Court
A Parthasarathy vs Swami Parthasarathy & Anr. on 27 August, 2018
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th August, 2018
+ CS (COMM) 349/2018
A PARTHASARATHY ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan, Ms. Iti Agarwal
Verma and Ms. Tamanna Goyal,
Advocates with Mr. Siddharth Jain in
person. (M:9560795595)
versus
SWAMI PARTHASARATHY & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms. Sona
Babbar and Mr. Vishal Aggarwal,
Advocates. (M:9810651177)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. 11394/2018 in CS (COMM) 349/2018
1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of
copyright, damages, etc. was instituted by the Plaintiff on the ground that
one of his literary works known as „Vedanta Treatise: The Eternities ‟, 11th
edition was infringed by the Defendants by publishing a book titled
„Vedanta for Modern World‟. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is
a world renowned philosopher and had published the said work after over 30
years of research. He is a philosopher well acclaimed in the field of
Vedanta. It is also stated that the Plaintiff runs the Vedanta Academy,
which is a well known academy for scriptures in Vedanta located in
Maharashtra. The Defendants‟ book had been released in the World Book
Fair and upon comparison of the same, the Plaintiff realised that the same is
a complete reproduction and verbatim copy of the Plaintiff‟s „Vedanta
Treatise‟. This Court on 16th May, 2014 had passed an injunction order in
the following terms.
".........
In view of the above, the plaintiff has been able to
make out a good prima facie case in his favour for
grant of an ad-interim order. In case the interim order
is not passed, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss
and injury. Till the next date of hearing, the
defendants, their partners, officers, servants, agents,
dealers, representatives, assignees, firms,
corporations, associations and/or otherwise are
restrained from in any manner reproducing,
distributing, publishing and/or selling the infringing
book titled "Vedanta For Modern World" or otherwise
infringing any copyright work including Vedanta
Treatise: The Eternities of the plaintiff.
Compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be
made within ten days.
................................."
2. Thereafter, the matter was considered from time to time. The Plaintiff
had moved CCP No.59/2015 alleging various acts of contempt by the
Defendants. Issues were framed on 19th October, 2016. On 14th March,
2017, this Court had accepted the unconditional apology by the Defendants
and both the CCPs were disposed of. Thereafter, the Court had, on 12 th July,
2017, appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of the evidence in the
matter. The Defendant has moved the present application being IA
No.11394/2018. In the present application, the Defendant No.1 submits that
he is a monk and he had published the book only for spiritual purposes and
not for a commercial motive. It is also stated in paragraphs 3 to 5 as under:
".............
3. It is submitted that, without prejudice to the defence
of the Defendant No.1 as detailed in the Written
Statement filed before this Hon'ble Court, Defendant
No.1 as a monk does not see any fruitful purpose in
either claiming any rights to the alleged work or
suffering a restraining order on account of claim by
the Plaintiff.
4. In view thereof, Defendant No.1 by way of present
application, without prejudice to his rights and
contentions as submitted in his Written Statement,
submits that he is willing to suffer a decree of
permanent injunction as prayed in Prayer A of the
plaint and also willing to hand over the copies of the
books available with Defendant No.1 as prayed for in
prayer B of the plaint.
5. The offer aforesaid as prayed for in the preceding
paragraph is without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of Defendant No.1 and subject to the
allowing of the plaint and disposal of the suit in terms
of the prayers aforesaid.
........................."
3. Accordingly, in the I.A., it is prayed that appropriate orders be passed
disposing of the suit.
4. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the applications shows
that both the works of the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively, are
spiritual in nature. Since the Defendant is willing to suffer an injunction, the
trial of the suit would only be in respect of damages. Since both the persons
i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendant are engaged in philanthropic and spiritual
pursuits, the parties have submitted that the suit can be disposed of.
However, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that costs have been
incurred by the Plaintiff in pursuing the present litigation. He submits that
the Plaintiff in filing the present suit, incurred legal costs, court fee, on two
occasions, a Local Commissioner was also appointed in this matter and even
for recording of evidence, costs had been incurred. Additionally, the
Plaintiff had to spend and incur expenses for travelling from outstation.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Defendant No. 1 submits
that the Defendant No. 1 is suffering from cancer and is indisposed so he
does not wish to contest this litigation. He also does not want to press his
defence as stated in the written statement in view of his indisposition.
Learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 also submits that there is a criminal
complaint filed by the Plaintiff against the said Defendant.
6. Considering the nature of the matter and the nature of the literary
work involved in the present case, since the Defendants are agreeable, the
suit is decreed in terms of prayer (a) of the plaint. All copies of the
infringing books which are lying with the Defendants shall be delivered to
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is at liberty to make any modifications, insofar as
the author‟s page is concerned and circulate the same in any manner as he
deems fit. Insofar as the costs are concerned, considering that the Defendant
No.1 did not seek permission of the Plaintiff before publishing the infringing
copy of the work, the following directions are being passed in the matter.
1) The Defendant shall issue a public apology to the Plaintiff
which shall acknowledge the Plaintiff‟s copyright over the Treatise.
The same shall be circulated by the Plaintiff, in any manner, as it
deems fit. Written public apology shall be supplied to the Plaintiff by
the Defendant within 10 days.
2) The Defendant shall also pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as costs to
the Plaintiff in view of the various expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in
pursuing this litigation. The same shall be used by the Plaintiff for
philanthropic / spiritual purposes.
7. In view of the above, learned counsel for Plaintiff agrees that he will
not pursue the criminal complaint against Defendant No.1. The costs be
paid within four weeks. The Defendant No.1 shall also not publish any
books wrongly crediting the same to be of the Plaintiff. Such publication
would be in violation of the moral rights of the Plaintiff. It is, directed
accordingly.
8. Learned counsel for Plaintiff has also pointed out that three books
which have been published by the Defendants, wrongly attribute the same as
being authored by the Plaintiff. It is directed that the Defendants books by
the name Forget Classroom Learning, Human Values in Modern
Management and Transforming Personality, which wrongly attributed to
have been authored by the Plaintiff, shall be suitably modified. The
Defendants shall carry out the necessary modifications in the books so that
the wrong attribution is removed/corrected prior to the circulation and
selling of the same.
9. I.A. and suit are disposed of as settled. Decree sheet be drawn. The
settlement terms contained above shall form part of the decree. Date already
fixed i.e. 12th September, 2018 stands cancelled.
Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2018/dk
