CS(OS) 2439/2012
  THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and ORS ..... Plaintiff
  Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
  Sai Krishna Rajgopal, Adv.
  Through Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. for D2
  Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Adv with Mr. Gaurav Mitra
  And Mr. Saurabh Seth, Adv. for D-1
   O R D E R
  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
  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
  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
  October 17, 2012
  $ 24