IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
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.
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
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
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
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
October 17, 2012