BHARATI DUTTA Vs. SARADINDU BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint under sub -section (2) of section 19A of the Copyright Act, 1957. The complainant is the eldest daughter of late Dr. Durga Das Basu. The case of the complainant is that late Dr. Basu in relation to the following books authored by him had assigned the copyright with all rights incidental thereto on his death to devolve on her.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in his reply filed has submitted that the alleged deed of assignment relied upon by the complainant is not admissible in evidence as the same is not assignment in terms of section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Since the author, late Dr. Durga Das Basu during his life time had realized the entire amount of royalty payable under the particular editions, the alleged assignments in question were all rendered infructuous. Even if it is presumed without admitting that the copyright was assigned to the complainant, the complainant has not exercised the rights allegedly assigned to her within the period of one year from the alleged deed of assignment and as such the purported assignment has lapsed. Even if it is assumed that the alleged agreement constitutes to be an assignment, no period of assignment has been mentioned. In accordance with section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the period of assignment is five years. Thus the alleged assignment has lapsed by efflux of time. Whatever royalty has been received after the demise of Late Dr. Basu, the same has been distributed amongst the heirs and the legal representatives equally, that is, amongst the complainant and the respondents herein. In conclusion, the respondent has submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for.

(3.) IN her rejoinder, the complainant has generally controverted the pleas of the respondent No. 1. She has submitted a letter dated 21.4.1999 written by the publisher, M/s. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. She has submitted that the edition of the book does not come to an end with the death of the author. So long as the concerned edition of the book is continued to be sold, the complainant is entitled to the royalty under the said edition of the book. She has denied the averment of the respondent that she has not exercised her right within one year of the assignment. She is entitled to enjoy the royalty on the concerned books to the exclusion of other heirs till May, 2002, that is, 5 years from the effective date of assignment. Since the distribution of receipts from the publishers was made in terms of the orders of the administrator appointed by the court which order provided that the distribution was made subject to the result of the proceedings and further subject to adjustment from the other amounts lying with the Administrator, there is no question of complainant having not objected to the distribution. Payments released were ad hoc payments as borne out from the minutes of the meeting of the Administrator dated 2.3.04 and 12.10.04.