Madras High Court
M/S.G.Balaji Publishers vs Lakshmi Publications on 25 August, 2021
C.S.No.748 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.748 of 2015
1.M/s.G.Balaji Publishers,
Flat No.5A, Sarva Shree Apartments,
Old No.57, New No.52, Gandhi Street,
West Mambalam, Chennai,
Tamilnadu – 600 033.
Rep. By its Proprietor, P.S.Bhaarathi
2.G.Balaji,
S/o. N.Govindarajan,
Flat No.5A, Sarva Shree Apartments,
Old No.57, New No.52, Gandhi Street,
West Mambalam, Chennai.
Tamilnadu – 600 033. ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Lakshmi Publications,
No.11, Veerabathra Nagar,
Part-II, 8th Street, Mambakkam Road,
Medavakkam, Chennai – 600100.
Tamilnadu.
Rep. By it Prop. D.Nirmala Durai.
2.J.Sakthivel,
Assistant Professor in Mathematics,
Mailam Engineering College, Mailam,
Tindivanam (Taluk), Villupuram District,
Tamilnadu – 604304.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
3.R.Saravanan,
Assistant Professor in Mathematics,
Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering & Technology,
Thirupachur, Thiruvallur District,
Tamilnadu – 631203. ...Defendants
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side rules r/w.
Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., and r/w. Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the Copyright
Act, 1957, praying as follows:-
a) a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves
or their directors, men, partners, proprietors, stockists, dealers, servants,
agents, franchises, successors in interest, licensees, assignees,
representatives or any of them from circulating / selling / distributing /
marketing / advertising the copyright infringing book entitled “Mathematics
for B.Arch 1st Semester Students” and to stop dealing in such infringing
copies or in any other manner acting unlawfully so as to infringe the
copyright of the plaintiffs.
b) the Defendants more particularly 1st Defendant be ordered to
surrender to plaintiff for destruction all infringing copies of the work
'Mathematics for B.Arch Ist Semester Students' including those in electronic
form;
c) the Defendants be ordered to prepare and render true accounts
of the revenue earned so far under the said infringing copy of the work to
enable this Hon'ble Court to assess the unlawful earnings made by the
Defendants and thereafter to pass a final decree upon ascertaining the
accounts, in favour of the 1st Plaintiff and against the Defendants;
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
d) the Defendants be directed pay damages of Rs.25,01,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs One Thousand only) jointly and severally to the
1st Plaintiff for infringing the Plaintiff's copyrighted literary work;
e) for the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.S.Patrick for Mr.S.Balachandran
For Defendants : Mr.G.Surya Narayanan for D1
JUDGMENT
The 1st plaintiff, the publisher and the 2nd plaintiff, the Author of
the book titled “B.Arch., Mathematics” published in the year 2013, have
come up with this suit, claiming that the 1st defendant had published a book
said to have been authored by the defendants 2 and 3, covering some subject
with a title “Mathematics for B.Arch. Ist Semester Students” in the year
2015.
2.According to the plaintiffs, the book published by the
defendants virtually copies several pages of the book authored by the 2nd
plaintiff and published by the 1st plaintiff in the year 2013. Citing instances
of such copying, the plaintiffs would seek a decree for permanent injunction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs for
the book titled “B.Arch. Mathematics”, seeking surrender of the infringing
copies of the book, accounts and damages.
3.The suit is resisted by the 1st defendant alone, while the 3rd
defendant has issued a reply notice to the plaintiffs that he has no
connection with whatsoever the publication of the offending book. The 2nd
defendant had remained exparte. The 1st defendant would claim that being a
publisher, it is not aware of the portions of the plaintiffs' book, having been
copied by the Authors of the book published by the 1st defendant. It is the
further contention of the 1st defendant that upon receipt of notice from the
plaintiffs' counsel, it had withdrawn all the books that was supplied in the
market, except 8 books, of which, 3 were purchased by the plaintiffs.
4.According to the 1st defendant, none of the books have been
sold and all books have been withdrawn. It is also the further claim of the
1st defendant, due to the change of syllabus, the very book itself had become
redundant and it cannot be sold anymore. On the above contentions, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
following issues are framed for determination in the suit:-
“1.Whether the defendants had committed
infringement of plaintiffs' copyright ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for
destruction of books as sought ?
3.Whether the plaintiffs have quantified
Rs.25,01,000/- in pleadings and whether the Court can order
any compensation without necessary pleadings ?
4.Whether the plaintiffs can claim rights over
mathematical works which are already in vogue with the
general public and in many websites ?
5. To what relief the parties are entitled to ?”
5.I have heard Mr.S.Patrick, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs and Mr.G.Surya Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
defendant.
6.Issue No.1:- Inviting my attention to the specific portions of the
books, which have been marked as MO1 (Series), Mr.S.Patrick, learned
counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that specific portions of
the plaintiffs' book, which has been marked as Book No.2 in MO1 (Series)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
have been verbatim reproduced in the book published by the 1st defendant
marked as Book No.III in MO1 (Series). He would also point out that
specific portions of the book marked as Book No.I in MO1 (Series) have
been copied and reproduced in Book No.III, which was published by the 1st
defendant. The learned counsel would also invite my attention to the
evidence of D.W.1 wherein, the witness would admit that the contents of the
book in some pages are exactly same. Based on the above material and
evidence on record, Mr.S.Patrick would submit that it is clear that there has
been an infringement of copyright of the plaintiffs. The fact that the
plaintiffs have been favoured with the Registration of copyright, pending
suit, is also not disputed.
6.1.Responding to the contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for the plaintiffs, Mr.G.Surya Narayanan, learned counsel
appearing for the 1st defendant would submit that the subject being
Mathematics, there is bound to be certain similarity in the books, which
cover the same syllabus. Unless it is shown that the offending book is
verbatim reproduction of the publiction of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
seek injunction.
6.2.No doubt, the claim that there are bound to be certain
similarities between books dealing with the same subjects is sustainable but,
at the same time, the offending book cannot be a verbatim reproduction of
the original and if it is shown that there has been a copying of the contents
of the book of the plaintiffs by the defendants' Author, then the plaintiffs
should be justified by seeking a decree for injunction. I have gone through
the portions of the book, which are alleged to have been copied. I find that
there has been a copying of certain pages of the Book No.1 and 2 marked as
MO1 Series in Book No.3. While Books No.1 and 2 of MO1 (Series) are
the publictions of the 1st plaintiff, Book No.3 is the publication of the 1st
defendant. There are two Authors of Book No.3, of which, one of the
Authors has claimed that he has no connection with the publication. The
other Author has remained exparte.
6.3.It is also pointed out by Mr.G.Surya Narayanan, learned
counsel appearing for the 1st defendant that the syllabus has changed and the
books of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant have become redundant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
today and therefore, both the books are not being sold today. He would also
point out to the evidence of the defendant to the effect that the books, which
were circulated in the market were recalled and destroyed, except 8 books,
of which, 3 books were purchased by the plaintiffs and produced as material
objects in the suit. Of course, the plaintiff has produced certain bills,
namely, Exs.P17 and P18, showing that the books were available in the
market during August, 2015. Mr.S.Patrick would also admit that because of
the change of syllabus, both the books have now become redundant and
they are no longer being sold by either of the parties.
6.4.In view of the above situation, I find that though there has
been a substantial copying of certain pages of the book of the plaintiffs by
the defendants, the injunctive reliefs sought for need not be granted.
However, I record the statement of the 1st defendant made in the additional
written statement to the effect that they are not selling the offending books
and they will not sell the offending books in future. Therefore, Issue No.1
is answered as above, recording the statement of the 1 st defendant as an
undertaking by the defendants that the offending book will not be sold in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
future.
7. Issue No.2 :- This issue relates to destruction of the offending
books.
As already pointed out, the offending books are no longer relevant
and they cannot be sold in the market. D.W.1 has categorically stated that
he has withdrawn the offending books and they have been destroyed also.
Hence, I do not think that the plaintiffs would be entitled to relief of
destruction of the books. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered against the
plaintiffs.
8.Issue No.3: This issue relates to damages
As far as the prayer for damages is concerned, I find total lack of
evidence. It is admitted by P.W.1 himself that if at all books can be sold,
number of copies sold will be only 300 to 500 and it caters to the limited
section of students of Architecture only. The 1st plaintiff has not produced
any evidence to show the volume of its sales, so as to demonstrate that the
1st plaintiff has suffered damages due to the offending book being sold in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
the market. If the plaintiffs are to be favoured with a decree for damages,
the plaintiffs must have produced evidence to show the actual sales and the
likelihood of the sales being affected because of the copied version of its
book and the damages that is likely to be caused. No such evidence is
placed before the Court, for the Court to come to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs have suffered such damages. In the light of total absence of
evidence, I do not think that the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for
damages.
9.Issue No.4: This issue relates to claim for copyright over
mathematical words.
As I already pointed out, while dealing with the issue No.1, a
person cannot claim absolute copyright to the mathematical formulae and
the problems as such, but the Author will have a copyright to the method by
which, he has solved the problems, the illustrations used and the eventual
answer. Therefore, issue No.4 is answered to the effect that the plaintiffs
can claim a copyright over the contents of a book in the Matematics
particularly, in relation to the procedure followed for solving the problems,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
the illustrations given and the manner, in which, the answers are arrived at.
10.In the light of the findings above, I do not think, the plaintiffs
could be favoured with any decree in this suit and this suit is disposed of
recording the undertaking of the defendant that the defendant will not sell
the infringing books in future. There will be no order as to costs.
25.08.2021
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
List of witness examined on the side of the plaintiffs:
G.Balaji (P.W.1)
List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiffs:
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit
1 The original list of books published by the plaintiffs. Ex.P1
2 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P2
19.08.2013.
3 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit
30.08.2013.
4 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P4
04.09.2013.
5 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P5
04.09.2013.
6 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P6
12.10.2013.
7 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P7
20.11.2013.
8 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P8
15.04.2014.
9 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P9
20.05.2014.
10 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P10
25.02.2015.
11 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P11
25.02.2015.
12 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P12
25.02.2015.
13 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P13
25.02.2015.
14 The true copy of the extract from Registrar of Copyrights dated Ex.P14
18.06.2015.
15 The office copy of the legal notice dated 27.07.2015 sent to the 1 st Ex.P15
defendant along with acknowledgement due.
16 The office copy of the legal notice dated 27.07.2015 sent to the Ex.P16
defendants 2 & 3 along with acknowledgement due.
17 The original of cash bill of Book Marks dated 10.08.2015 against Ex.P17
purchase of copy of infringing book 'Mathematics for B.Arch. I
Semester Students' authored by the 2nd and 3rd defendant and
published by the 1st defendant.
18 The original of cash bill of Book Marks dated 12.08.2015 against Ex.P18
purchase of copy of infringing book 'Mathematics for B.Arch. I
Semester Students' authored by the 2nd and 3rd defendant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit
published by the 1st defendant.
List of witness examined on the side of the defendants:
A.Durai (D.W.1)
List of documents marked on the side of the defendants:
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit
1 Ex.P1
2 The Authorization Letter dated 19.09.2019. Ex.P2
3 The Book of Engineering Mathematics 3rd Edition, authored by Ex.P3
T.Veerarajan for semester I & II.
4 The Allied Mathematics Book for B.Sc., New revised Edition, Ex.P4
authored by Dr.A.Singaravelu.
5 The Book of Algebra and Trigonometry, I semester for B.Sc., Ex.P5
Mathematics authored by P.R.Vital and V.Malini.
6 The extract of stock registrar dated 17.09.2019 for the period between Ex.P6
01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016.
25.08.2021
kkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.S.No.748 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.748 of 2015
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
