Pearson Education Inc v. S.M.Saifullah & Ors

REVA KHETRAPAL, J 3rd April, 2008 nm

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.319/2007 and CM Nos.11360-61/2007 & 4314/2008 % Date of decision : 3rd April, 2008 Pearson Education Inc. ..... Appellant Through Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Akash Chittranshi and Mr.Rahul Berwar, Advocates versus S.M. Saifullah and others ..... Respondents Through Md. Mobin Akhtar, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Vishal Arun, Advocate for R-2-3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of a number of applications. The appellant herein is particularly aggrieved by the order passed whereby two applications, one under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the appellant / plaintiff and the other under order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the respondents / defendants were disposed of. At the time of issuance of summons in the suit, an ad interim injunction in respect of alleged violation of copyright by the defendants was granted. The respondents / defendants filed a reply to the aforesaid application and also filed an independent application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for vacation of interim injunction which was granted. 2. After hearing arguments on both the aforesaid applications, the impugned order was passed, which is under challenge in this appeal. The learned Single Judge, while passing the aforesaid order held that the respondent / defendant has merely reproduced some definitions, arrangement of topics, arrangement of analysis and, therefore, it cannot be prima facie said that the books of the defendant / respondent were copies of the plaintiff's books. 3. Having held thus, the learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that it is an undisputed fact that the books of the respondents were on scientific and technical subjects written to meet the requirements of the students of universities pursuing studies in MCA etc. and that the said books were bound to have discussion only on the common engineering topics. After recording the aforesaid findings, the learned Single Judge held that on the basis of a few definitions, it cannot be said that the respondents have infringed the copyright of the appellant and that the appellant has miserably failed in showing prima facie that there was an infringement of copyright of the plaintiff's work. The aforesaid findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the learned Single Judge has misread and misapplied the law relating to violation of copyright and thereby recorded a wrong finding. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted before us that the books of the respondents were highly scientific and technical books and the principles and theories being of a technical nature would always have to be identical and same to those of the theories and principles mentioned in the books of the appellant and, therefore, the same cannot in any manner amount to infringement or violation of the copyright. 5. Counsel appearing for the parties during the course of their arguments referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films and others reported as AIR 1978 SC 1613. The said decision relates to the question of violation of copyright and specifically deals with as to how such a fact could be determined. In paragraph 45 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court elucidated the law when it observed as follows: "45. Thus, the position appears to be that an idea, principle, theme, o