The Calcutta High Court upheld a trial court’s interim injunction restraining a Kolkata-based publisher, Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd, from printing, publishing, selling, or distributing the literary and artistic works of the late eminent author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya declined to substitute its own view for that of the trial judge, finding no error of law or fact in the impugned order. The High Court observed that the learned trial judge adopted one of the possible views based on the averments made in the injunction application and the plaint, and therefore affirmed the injunction.
The dispute originated from a suit instituted by Narayan Debnath’s widow in her capacity as executrix of his will and by their son as legatee of the will. The plaintiffs claimed that the publisher continued to exploit the author’s works beyond the licence period granted under a 2012 agreement. According to the plaintiffs, the agreement was valid only for two years, and continued publication thereafter constituted copyright infringement. They claimed rights over the copyright based on the will executed by the late author. In response, the trial court issued an ad-interim injunction restraining Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd from printing, publishing, selling, or distributing Debnath’s works through any online or physical mode until the specified date.
The publisher challenged the interim injunction before the High Court. It contended that the injunction was obtained at the eleventh hour, just one day before the commencement of a major book fair, causing irreparable commercial loss. The publisher argued that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged infringement since 2021 but waited until 2026 to file the present suit, and that this delay defeated equity and disentitled the plaintiffs from seeking urgent injunctive relief.
The appellants also raised a contention regarding maintainability, asserting that neither the executrix nor the legatee under the will had locus standi to institute proceedings without obtaining probate under the relevant provisions of succession law. They relied on provisions of the Indian Succession Act, claiming that in a notified territory such as West Bengal, neither an executor nor a legatee could maintain a suit without probate being granted.
The High Court rejected the limitation and maintainability objections. It observed that copyright infringement constitutes a continuing cause of action and therefore limitation does not apply in the conventional sense, as the cause of action arises day to day. The court held that in cases of copyright infringement, the statutory limitation period is not a bar to seeking relief, given that the violation continues with each unauthorised act. Furthermore, the bench rejected the contention regarding lack of locus standi, holding that an executor, for the limited purpose of protecting the property and estate of the deceased, is fully entitled to maintain suits or take necessary actions to safeguard the property. The court explained that even where statutory provisions require probate, an executor can act in an intermediate capacity to protect estate assets, and such acts are validated upon the subsequent grant of probate.
The High Court also noted that although the plaintiffs might not represent the entire body of heirs, the suit was maintainable in their respective capacities as executrix and legatee as well as heirs of the deceased testator. The bench found that the trial court had not erred in issuing the interim injunction and that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek protection of the copyrights of Debnath’s works pending the final adjudication. It observed that allegations regarding infringement and the need to prevent further unauthorised exploitation of the works were prima facie established on the basis of the pleadings.
In rejecting the publisher’s appeal and connected applications, the High Court affirmed the impugned interim injunction order. The injunction continued to restrain Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd from printing, publishing, selling, or distributing the literary and artistic works of the late author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath until the date specified in the injunction order. The Court’s decision confirmed the trial court’s assessment of the prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs if the injunction were not granted. The order upheld the legal entitlement of the author’s widow and son to protect the intellectual property rights in the works of Narayan Debnath and ensured that these rights remained safeguarded pending further proceedings in the litigation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.