Narayan Debnath copyright row: Calcutta High Court bans publisher from selling legend’s works

The publishing house’s primary contention was that the widow and son of the late author lacked locus standi (capacity to bring an action) to maintain the suit.

They argued that under Section 213 (right as executor or legatee when established) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, no rights as an executor or legatee can be established in a court within West Bengal unless probate is granted.

“The widow, in the capacity of executor, and the son of the author, as legatee of the will of the late Narayan Debnath, are fully entitled to maintain the suit even before the probate is granted,” the court said on January 21.

Findings

• In case of infringement of a copyright, the cause of action is continuing in nature and arises de die in diem, and as such, limitation arises day to day, since the cause of action is a fresh cause of action each succeeding day/moment.
• Hence, the bar under Order IX Rule 9 (dismissal of a suit for the petitioners’ non-appearance) does not apply to the present case as well, as the subsequent suit is on a fresh and subsequent cause of action and not the “self-same” cause of action as the previous suit, which was dismissed for default.
• At the ex parte ad interim stage, the learned trial judge was to proceed on the premise that the averments made in the plaint and the injunction application are sacrosanct, since no rebuttal has yet come on record, the matter being still at the adinterim stage.
• Hence, although they do not represent the entire body of heirs of the deceased testator, there being at least one other sibling of the son, the fact remains that the capacity of the widow and son of the author remains as heirs of the deceased testator as well.
• This suit is maintainable in both the avatars of the plaintiffs- as executor/legatee and as heirs of the deceased testator.
• Thus, the objection as to maintainability of the suit, advanced by the appellant, cannot be entertained in any manner whatsoever.
• It is made clear that none of the above observations shall be treated to be conclusive at any further stage of the injunction application or the suit and the trial judge shall dispose of the injunction application as well as the suit on their respective merits without being influenced in any manner unnecessarily by any of the findings rendered above.

Background

• The case originates from the plea filed by the author’s widow, Archana Debnath, and one of his sons.
• The petitioners alleged that the publishing house was infringing upon the copyrights of the late Narayan Debnath’s works.
• They contended that the 2012 agreement between the author and the publisher was only for two years duration, and the publisher continued to use the works thereafter without paying adequate royalties.
• On January 9, the district court at Alipore granted an ad interim injunction effective until February 9, covering both physical books and online platforms.
• The publishers challenged this order in the high court, citing extreme urgency as the injunction was obtained just a day before the commencement of a major book fair on January 22.
• Appearing for the legal heirs of Debnath, Senior Counsel Sardar Amjad Ali submitted that Debnath had filed the suit before the civil judge Howrah and withdrawn subsequently on the ground that the court lack jurisdriction.
• However, the counsel for the publishing house, Senior Advocate Saptansu Basu, argued that the suit was dismissed by the said court and that there is gross suppression of material facts in the plaint and the injunction application by the heirs of the author.
• He further submitted that the present suit is barred by limitation as well as by operation of Order IX Rule 9 (dismissal of a suit for the petitioners’ non-appearance) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the earlier suit of Narayan Debnath.