|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2439/2012 THE CHANCELLOR,MASTER and SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and ORS ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sai Krishna Rajgopal, Adv. versus RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICES and ANR.... Defendant Through Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. for D2 Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Adv with Mr. Gaurav Mitra And Mr. Saurabh Seth, Adv. for D-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR O R D E R 17.10.2012 IA No. 14632/2012 (U/o. 39, R- 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC) Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that in the written statement filed by defendant no.2, the defendant no. 2 has very categorically stated that whatsoever they had done earlier was done only under the impression that they were permissible to do the same. The defendant no. 2 has also taken a stand that their acts were bona fide in order to facilitate the students of the defendant no. 2/University of Delhi. Defendant no. 2 has further stated that they have no role to play and they further categorically submitted that they had no intention to breach any such law by making such reproduction of course packs, books and articles. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel thus prays that in the light of the said stand taken by defendant no. 2 in their written statement, direction be given to defendant no.1 to remain bound by the same. In the light of the stand taken by defendant no.2, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, counsel for defendant no.1 has produced the original licence agreement. The counsel submits that in terms of the clause 15(iv) of the original licence agreement dated 24.7.2011, the Delhi School of Economics i.e. the defendant no. 2 has permitted defendant no.1 to zerox the copies provided by the defendant no. 2 from the master copy of each article in the chapter book so as to save their original documents/copies and therefore, there is no violation of any copyright act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The defendant no. 2 has taken a stand that whatever they were earlier doing was under the bona fide impression with a view to achieve their goal in the larger interest of the students and in any case, they have no intention to breach any such law by making re-production of the copies or to commit any kind of violation of copy right. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 1 during the course of his arguments has taken a stand that in any case, defendant no.1 is merely doing the work of photocopying the material brought to their shop by the students or by the faculty members. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to the report of the Local Commissioner especially to Annexure Exhibit-3 showcasing the fact that the course packs and the books/chapters were found available in the defendant?s shop and seized by the Local Commissioner. On perusal of Exhibit 3, it is quite manifest that the Local Commissioner had seized the course packs and certain books from the shop of the defendant no.1 and these course packs and books contained photocopied articles for different courses. The Local Commissioner further found that all these articles were published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, who are the plaintiffs before this Court. Defendant no.1 is the photocopier running its shop under licence from the defendant no. 2. The defendant no.1 has no right to compile such course packs and books/articles published by the plaintiffs and more so, when defendant no.2/University has taken a stand that that they have no intention to breach any law by making such reproductions as complained of by the plaintiff in the present suit. The defendant no.1 is accordingly restrained from making or selling course packs and also reproducing the plaintiff?s publication or substantial portion thereof by compiling the same either in a book form or in the form of a course pack, till the final disposal of the said application. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J October 17, 2012 $ 24
|
|