MANYA VEJJU Vs. SAPNA BHOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dtd. 21/2/2023 passed by the learned District Judge on an application (Exhibit 5) in Civil Suit No.19 of 2022 whereby the learned District Judge was persuaded to restrain the Appellant-Defendant from, either directly or indirectly, in any form, publishing or making any statement alleging copyright infringement against the Plaintiff and also from publishing defamatory statements alleging copyright infringement against the Plaintiff, and also from extracting, excerpting, mutilating any part of the Plaintiff's Literary Work and publishing the same, till the disposal of the suit, which has been instituted for restraining the Appellant-Defendant from giving groundless threat of legal proceeding alleging infringement, under Sec. 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) The backgrounds facts leading to this appeal can be stated, in brief, as under :

(3.) After appraisal of the pleadings, the material on record and the submissions canvassed across the bar, the learned District Judge was persuaded to grant injunction, holding that the Plaintiff had succeeded in establishing the parameters for grant of interim relief. The learned District Judge repelled the contention of the Appellant-Defendant that in view of the proviso to Sec. 60 of the Act, 1957, the suit was not maintainable. Placing reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani V/s. Sonal Info Systems,2012 SCC Online Bom 351. the learned District Judge returned a finding that the suit under Sec. 60 of the Act, 1957 would be maintainable, despite the Defendant having allegedly initiated a criminal action against the Plaintiff. The learned Judge was also of the view that, prima facie, the storylines of the books "The Varma Brothers" Series and "The Bond of Brothers" Series were different. The Plaintiff had, thus, succeeded in demonstrating that there were triable issues. The learned District Judge also found balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff and observed that, in the event the Defendant was not restrained, the Plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss.