NATIONAL PUBLISHING HOUSE Vs. AMIT SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these orders I shall dispose of OMP 194/2000 filed by the National Publishing House (Publisher) Vs. Amit Sachdeva (Author) and OMP No. 234/2000 filed by Amit Sachdeva (Author) against National Publishing House (Publisher) hereinafter. Both the Petitions are under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In the first Petition the Publisher has prayed for an injunction restraining the author from cancelling the Agreement dated. 16.3.1998 and also from transferring/assigning the publication rights of the book MICRO ECONOMICS PARTS 1 and 2 FOR B.COM. (HON.), DELHI UNIVERSITY. In the second Petition the author has prayed for an injunction restraining the Publisher from selling the Reprint 2000 of the books "Micro Economic Theory Applications Part I" and "Micro Economic Theory Applications Part 11".

(2.) The Agreement dated 10/03/1998, between the parties postulates inter alia as follows:

(3.) It appears that disputes between the parties had arisen pursuant to the author's letter dated 10.6.2000, which contains various complaints including outstanding payments. The author had stated that he would treat the contract as called off and would be free to get the books published from any other source. He also complained that the publisher had been publishing books on the same subject of another author through its sister concern "which obviously comes in competition to my books". All these assertions and terms were negatived by the publisher in terms of his letter dated 13.6.2000 in which it also made a reference to its previous letter dated 27.4.2000. This letter is of some relevance because receipt thereof had been vehemently denied by Learned Counsel for the author. Reference to this letter had also been made in a subsequent Legal Notice dated 19th June, 2000 which substantially reiterated the contentions voiced in the publisher's letter dated 13.6.2000. This letter was also replied to by the author by his letter dated 22/06/2000 in which he has, inter alia, raised a claim for damages for criminal conspiracy at Rs. 21,10,0007.00 This tetter was again replied to by the Learned Counsel for the publisher and in paragraph 6 it has been asserted that the publisher had requested the author, vide letter dated 27/04/2000 for the revision of the book in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.