U.C. JINDAL Vs. GALGOTIA PUBLICATION PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint under section 19A of the Copyright Act, 1957. Petitioner claims to be author of several books. Petitioner has mentioned titles of seven books on various aspects of Mechanical Engineering which were given for publication to the respondent. Agreements of assignment were entered on different dates in relation to these works. Petitioner has mentioned titles of another four books for which, according to the petitioner, no agreement in writing between the petitioner and respondent exists. Respondent has published all these books and the same find mention in the catalogue published by the respondent. Advances, if any, paid by the respondent have been mentioned in the respective agreements. In matter of a book, out of these four books, bearing title 'Mechanical Engineering [UPTU], as per new Syllabus by U.C. Jindal/Vivek Kumar', the respondent has fraudulently ripped eight chapters (Chapters 1 to 7 and 10) from the book Engineering Mechanics (UPTU) by U.C. Jindal, another book out of these four books. In the various catalogues published by the respondent, 10 out of 11 books of the petitioner are shown. A book out of these books, namely, Engineering Mechanics (UPTU) by U.C. Jindal is not shown. From this very book, the respondent fraudulently ripped certain chapters and bound those with another book. No permission from the petitioner was taken for it. Petitioner has annexed at C showing statement of royalty amounts paid to him from 1996 -97 to 2005 -06. Certain discrepancies in these statements have been explained by the petitioner. In October, 2003, the petitioner found that the book Engineering Mechanics, Part I STATICS is shown as re -printed in the year 2002, but the publisher never paid any royalty on the reprinted copies to the petitioner inspite of various reminders. Respondent is obliged to send to the petitioner yearly information about the sale of the books of the petitioner which respondent never did. There is non observance of clause 9 of different agreements which provides about the settlement of royalty. Book titled Introduction to Strength of Materials was kept out of print during the year 2005 -06 and at the end of year 2006, the respondent printed revised edition 2007 of the book without getting the book revised by the author. Petitioner has annexed as E1 -E22 various letters which he wrote to the respondent about non payment of royalties, etc. Petitioner has drawn attention to a standard clause 13 in all the agreements providing as under: - -

(2.) RESPONDENT in its written statement has submitted that, according to the petitioner, there was no assignment qua the four books mentioned in paragraph 3. Thus there is no assignment in terms of section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and there cannot be any dispute under section 19A of the said Act which can be adjudicated by the Copyright Board in relation to those books. There is an arbitration clause in the agreements entered in writing for the remaining books mentioned in paragraph 2. Hence, any dispute qua those books is liable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator and not by the Copyright Board. Claim of the petitioner is not substantiated by evidence and documents. Respondent has not disputed publication of seven books mentioned in paragraph 2 and 4 books mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition. Respondent has denied that it has fraudulently ripped in the chapters from the earlier books of the petitioner. In reply to paragraph 4 of the petition, respondent has agreed that it has mentioned 10 books of the petitioner in its catalogue for the reason that the book at serial number 9 of the petition had been brought out as a revised edition. In reply to paragraph 5 of the petition, respondent has submitted that the amount of royalty due to the petitioner has been correctly paid. In reply to paragraph 6 of the petition, respondent has given certain explanation about certain calculation errors which were rectified later on. In reply to paragraph 7 of the petition about various letters written by the petitioner, respondent has replied that the letters received as and when were appropriately replied to. In reply to paragraph 8 relating to clause 13 of the agreement, respondent has submitted that the petitioner is challenging the clause of an agreement entered into some 10 years back. Clause is necessary to safeguard the sanctity and the goodwill of the literary work of the author as well as concerned publication house. In reply to paragraph 9 of the petition, respondent has submitted that it is under no obligation to communicate to the petitioner the number of copies printed or to disclose the stock in hand

(3.) REPLICATION filed by the petitioner mentions that the standard form of agreement between the petitioner and respondent is one sided and unreasonably harsh to the petitioner. Harshness of agreement further gets aggravated through the behaviour of the respondent - - in as much as the respondent has denied receipt of many letters written to it. Respondent has submitted false royalty statements before the Board. Respondent has deliberately avoided to produce prescription of petitioner's works in many colleges. Respondent had been distributing older edition. of the petitioner's book inspite of the fact of the new edition having come into print, Right in relation to four books for which there was no written agreement was withdrawn by the petitioner by various letters and the final letter dated 9th April, 2007. Inspite of that, respondent continued publishing those books. Respondent's action in publishing an adaptation of the petitioner's work titled Mechanical Engineering UPTU without any permission is in violation of the author's special right provided under section 57(b). In reply to the preliminary objections of the respondent, petitioner has said admittedly that there was no written agreement in relation to four books and has sought for appropriate action for unauthorized publication by the respondent. In reply to submission of the respondent as to the arbitration clause in the written agreements, petitioner has submitted that the respondent had been unresponsive to various communications from him and hence the remedy by the Copyright Board. In any case, arbitration clause is only with regard to interpretation or enforcement of the agreement and not in the case of revocation and only the Copyright Board has statutory powers in that regard. Petitioner has generally rebutted the assertions of the respondent in other matters. In relation to clause 13 of the agreement, petitioner has submitted that the same is violative of section 27 of the Indian Contract Act which provides "Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.".