Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sample WS

    Uploaded by

    GOKUL R
    3 views30 pages
    Written statement

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Written statement

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views30 pages

    Sample WS

    Uploaded by

    GOKUL R
    Written statement

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 30
    » °T" Ez ArnexveecT 2225 - ‘NEXT.DATE OF HEARING 17.10.2012 ‘THE HIGH COURT OF DELHX AT NEW DLEHE ‘65 (05) Wo.2439 of 2032 “The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars OF the University of Oxtord & Ors inti Rameshwari Photocopy Service & Ane. Defendants el Defendont No. 2/ Unversty of Delhi along win atest npouse crm manmoe acyasr Sie v2 seca Hel <2, awren's enaaee, he Se mis court neh Bu & ‘woe: 9810263074) sev02s0768 new peut DaTED: 03:10.2012 9286 ‘THE HIGH COURT OF DELH AT NEW DLENT ordinary Orginal Ch ursceson) 6S (05) No.2839 of 2012 nthe matter of ‘The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars Of the University of Oxford & Ors. Plains Rameshwari Photocopy Service & Ane.» Defendants 1. That the present soit as fled by te paints isthe abuse of te process of Inw end as such fable to be dismisses with exemplary cost. ‘That the present suk of flee by te planks is barred under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1 read with Order 2 Rule 3 CPC for non Joinéer and mis finder of plants and causes of tctons 8 m0 common questions of fact ond low are avsing out In the instant case, Therefore, the sults bad for non jlnder sod mis finder of paring innemuch ae the planniis are _valding cour fee inthe metter by not instituting separate sults ‘against the defendants ang hove celberstey led single sut vith the ulterior motives when the grievance of Paint No.1 an lone hand and tet of Point No.2, 3, and 4 and S onthe other 2927 hand does not arse out ofthe same transaction. Its ene thing to say thatthe grievance is common; however, it enother thing to say thot they erse out ofthe seme transection and there is no nexus ofthe plains in the same transaction which enables them to sue together the defendants ina single su. There Is no nevus between Plain No.1, Plaintit No.d and Paint No.S. Sven tests are not uslfied inthe present case and therefore the instant Sut cannot be instituted a5 Such In the present form by the pvintins together against the elendants and trerefre the sult is linble to be cismissed for want of court fe endfor wer of mis finder an non jlnder of parties and the paints my be called upon to institute present stn accordance with aw ‘That the present sult fof infringement of copyright 1 not ‘aintsinadle asthe plants hove competly fled to cscoge ‘he essential ingrecants of the copyright. Is submited that the plantits are asserting Infngement on the bass. of unrogistered copyright. It Is submitted that the necessary Inaredionts of the sais unregistered copyrights Include the ame and tle of the respective books, the name of the authors, name of the owners and the chain of ttle as to the ‘ownership 2s to how the paints claim to be the owners ofthe 5818 copysght, Paints nether have setup such a cage Inthe plaint nor have ney narated separately Inthe plantas to how they attained the status of owners of the copyright and in respect of which books authored by whom. In the absence of ‘any such events, plaints are clsenttles to urge ownership of 9229 the copyright 35 tha plant leeks materia! perculors ang ‘averments and as such the instant Slt i Hobe to be dissed closing no cause of action under the provgione of Order 7 ule 11-2) CPC That te instant suit hae not been instuted; slgred ang verte by éuly authorizes and competent persons. Therefore, the instant sult is able tobe cmisza ‘That instant sult hos Not been valued propery as ko the court fees for the purposes ot present proceadings and therefore tne same is lable to be cismisse. That the Defendant n0.2 is Delhi University which prescribing sylabus for several cueulums offered by W in relation to gracuation and post graduation courses caried out in the sald Unversity. Worle over Universities permit students ‘0 cooy limited pages from any work for use In research and for use in the elasroom by a student or teacher This ie recognizes by the Copyright Act, 2957 in Section $2 (a) ene (). Indvicual students and teacners may ether read the prescribed books and Journal and other related works inthe Nbrary or else borrow the books and make 2 photo copy of the relevant hapter ane pages in a manner wien I within the purview of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 inclcated above Ths facity of copying cern peges for educetional purposes 1s necessary because purchasing Indvidval Books Is expensive, land further, In many instances, tnase book are out of pont or ‘not evallable in nda. Photocopying the relevant chapter oF 2224 selectee pages may be resorted tain such caves where tne books are nat avalabie on-line in the Rorary, Members of the University may aiso collec al the rebcings from aterant books together before handing it over for copying. The faclty of photocopying limited portions of werks for leducatonal and research purposes could have been proves within the brary had the Universty adequate space, resources ‘and mangower at Is elsposal. Instead it granted the facity of photocopying to Defendant No 1 keeping the interest of the students in mid. and kegplng n view the aw ofthe land and permitted the Defendant No. 1 te photocopy pages of chapters of single copy books, out of pant books, not to be Issued books and rare books on getting requests trom faculty members, researchers and students. It is submitted that the Copyright ‘Act 1957 as amended by The Copyright (Amended) Aet, 2012, specicaly engrans such exception to. the inhingement Principle by stating that any reproduction and the copies made 2s part of questions to be answered for examination or answers te such questions oc anything which any work in the course of Instroeson by the tescher from within the gurview of Intingement. Ths is cecogrized inthe form of Section 52 (1) (0) of Copyright Act, 1957 which reads as under: "Seetinn 52(1}()) the rependuction of any work 1. by teacher or pupil in the course of Instruction; or i. as part of tho questions to be answered in an examination; or 1, In answers to such questions," P2320 From bare reading of the atoresld provision, itis clear that reerecustion forthe purposes defined in point (i 9 (i) above the seme are exempted from the purview of infingement. Conjoint reacing of the said averment in the plait read with ‘ecson 52(1)) of Copyright Ret, 1957 as amended in 2012, would clay reveal that eny such reproduction whatsoever (though the defendants dispute that they have permitted such reprecuction) le fustinabe ae ron infringing work “That the anewerng defencont submits Cat the copyrights 2 ace of welfare lian, The sei legisation is aimed at protecting on safeguarding te teres of authors and owner. 1 cannot be lost sight of that tie same very legislation lances the competing Interest ofthe Solty and those who are members ofthe scety 30 tht the protection gen to the authors shoud not unnecesseiy impinge upon te legate acts dane by bone fide persons. Suen bleneng of he acs i ‘one inthe frm of segregating cary the acs that ameunt to Intingement trom the Acts which do nat amount to Infangement: Once she Copyright Act early provides cepton 5 for 8 ote to reproaueon of any work done In furtherance of answering the questions or pert of questions to be answered in exominaion, the sak proven has tobe Insecpated inthe ght of cmresponcing heat which eto be vento the society 20 ao fll te sit bene whieh so be given tothe enldven af youth by encouraging the talent n to enable them ta|study the books and making them available a reasonable costs by providing photocopies of 223) selected pepee of chapters ftom prescibed books for educations! purposes. “That Defendant No.2 is an intrumentaty of the Szate and an agency of the State whose paramount duty and motive Is to Impart eduction end to were within che constitutions! framework by implementtg the State Directives envisaged In ara 4 of the Indian Consfitutlon. One of the State Directives lihich isthe mandate under the Indian Coasttution to te State and in tum to Detencent No.2 herein which In the form of Article 39 (F) which says that State shall n patel rect ts policy towerds securing "et "ehildren are given ‘opportunities and facilities to develop In a healthy ‘manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that children and youth are protected against ‘exploitation and against moral and material abandonment’, Similar provson is also envisaged in relation to Right to Eduction by making effecave provision for the seme by the State inthe form of Article 44 wich reads "The ‘State shal, within the limits of its economic capacity and evelopment, make effective provision for securing the right to work, f0 education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.” Collective reatng of Article 41 and Article 39(f) of the Indian CConsttutlon, vould raven that the State is within tne mancate by the Constitution to make policy in furtherance of nurturing te ehilaren by giving them the opeortunties to develop in a 2232 hesttny manner and wouls aio not hesitate within ts econamic capacty t0 make efecivecrovsion In order to exercise thelr ght to eduction. Such provisions in the Constttin are Indicative of the welfore of the ctizenry Ia the form of youth fang the state cuty to encourage talent by making the effective provisions to exercise thelr right to education thereby nurturing them to develop in a heathy manner. This wil certainly include the mesures ike the present one where Defendent No.2 within, ts economic capacty, whatever is available to Defendent No.2, le presenbing the courses to the students of Dei University \anicn includes beth veh and poor by feitatng. ther in the form of Defendant No.t provicing the fecity of photocopying limited pages from preseribed books (whlch each Indvivel student coulg have done had such photacoplers been instaled \ithia the premises of the brary) to those who are otherwise Incapable of purchesing costly books due to thelr higher prices. 1 the sale aims and objectives are seen under the State Directives in the Constistion read with Copyright Act, tis clear hat Defendant Ne.2 Is fuling the command of the Cconsttuton ay making such effective measures and rather working within the constuonel amework and not infnging anybody's work much lefs the plaintiffs herein. It is well settled pnncile thot the gonsttutlonsl commend in the form of State Dirctivee ae wall a6 undamantal ights operate on = higher pedestal than that of any legislation. IF the purposes and actions are to ful the larger alm preserbed under the Constitution, then the Interpretation should be given to the legisiotion so that both the constitutional framework and the 2233 Statutory rights should work hand in hand and the esi soco- economic measure should not be alowed to be disturbed by employing the rigid introvetation and overstretching the statumey sighs beyond fhe constutional femework. The answering defendsnt subr¥ts that tis Is even taken care of by the lelstatoe by enacting Section 52(2)) thereby preserbing ‘such exceptions which are to be seen rom the prespective of what Is the Intended purpose and avawed objectives from the constinaonel framework rather than in a narrow compess, 10. That the Defendant No.2 submits that Plitits ‘themselves are net tne proprietors of the copyright herln as te Plaines neve miserably floc to aleclose tne ownership as to tite flowing In favour of the Paints and strightway flee the present suit ey climing te copyright infringement. ‘Therefore, the Plaintits hove not complied with the provisions ‘of Section 17 and Section 18 ofthe Copyright Act, 2957, 11, That the plaitits nave also not shown assignments carried out between authors and owners which enable the Dlaltits to claim ownership over the copyright and therefore te plaints nave not fed the weten assignment wthich isthe requirement of the law in order to elim ownership and ho thus violated the provisions of Seccon 18 of the Copyriaht Act 12, Defendent No.2 submis that ts stated in the paint that Paint No.3 and Paint No.2 are in the relation of Ficensee ‘and lcensor, Similary, the other paints are algo In relation of licensee on icensor. But there are no writen lansing 922 ‘agreements whieh are Sled in the present proceedings. Ts submited tt in the absence of written licensing agreement, iain’ suis defective as not complying with the provisions Of Section 30 and Secon 30 Ao the Copyright Ac, 1957, 3. 14, Thet the Defendont No.2 states thatthe Plants are not ‘the authors and owners of the workin question, 1s submited thet the planets neve not escosed their rlatonship with the {authors and have attempted ts rely ypon the blanket Heensing ‘agreement. is suomited that such kind of practice is impermissible 3s the plaints are to be concerned with articular nature of work and corresponding infringement. Piaintfis nave deloertaly and maliouly attempted to secure the Banke order from the court without dscesing proper cause of action. The instant sult Is therefore lable to be smissed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 13 (3) as the same doesnot disclose any cause of acon with respect to ttle ‘and ownership of the plaiuits in the said works and in now ‘many works. Therefore, Ye sit in the present frm is es such lable to be dismissed. Pores have also not filed the record of the Commissioner appointed by the court and indeed the nature of materials foung within the premiges of Defendant No. 1 15, That the present suit not velued correctly for the Purposes of court fee ard damages. It eubmited tat the plaints have not sutered any damages of such 2 huge ‘amount 2s contended inthe plant. It is submitted that the 2280 Pisints nave wrongfully eimed! damages of Rs.60.00 lacs and the seid Rgure Is sham, fletous, bogus and Imaginary. By doing logally jestable act, the plalntits cannot be said to be ‘uttering enything as against tne sharp conradstinction to any Infringement wnicn ray befor commercial purposes 16, That the instant suit is also barres under the prncple of ‘de minimis non curat lex. The sai principle erunciates thst the lam does net take care of via! things. The said Latin ‘maxim states that te law doesnot take Into account the tii things. It Is submitted thatthe present case is such a case where the defendants nave jus implemented the sylabus for the purposes of imparting edvcaton and to full te larger constitutions! goel. The pains win the ulterior motive te al raver have indulged Into suing the ‘bv chasing trvalies. This Court should analyze from the perspective of @ reasonable man and the question tobe asked le "whether sven tavetves are #9 be looked Into In such & serious nature by ealng them an infringement when they ere specinealy provided 25 2 part of exception in the Copycght ‘Act Therefore, clearly the plaints are guiky of approaching this Honbie Court on the bass of trivial hing. 17, That the inert uti als barred under the provisions of Secon 52(2)() ef the Copyright Act, 1957 which reeds * the performance, in the course of activities of an educational Institution, of a literary, dramatic or musical work by the staff and students of the institution, or of 3 2236 inematograph fla: or 2 sound recording it the audience 1s limited to such staff and students, the parents and ‘guardians of the students and persons connected with such an audience of @ cinematograph film or sound recording.” Therefore, tne same Is also covered within the purview of Section 62(2)) 280 18. That the present sult is also barred under the provisions of Section 52(2b) of the Copyright Act (Amended) Act, 1957 whieh reads - "the adaptation, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, by ~ (i) any person to facilitate persona with disability to access to works including ‘sharing with any person with disability of such ‘accessible format for private or personal use, ‘educational purpose or tesearch; or (Il) any organization working forthe benefit ofthe persons with disabilities in «ase the normal format pravents the enjoyment of such works by such persons: ~ Provided that the copies of the works in such accessible format are made available to the persons with disabilities on a non-profit basis but 10 recover only the cost of production; - Provided Turther that the organization shall ensure that the copies of works In such accessible format are used only by persons with disabilities and takes reasonable steps to prevent its entry into ordinary channels of business. From te bare reacng ofthe foregoing ts clear thatthe said 2237 prowsion excludes within the purview of infringement any reprocuction, adaptation, ssuance of copies to facitate the persons with cigs to 2eaess Such Work for educational purposes. Iti submitted that the buyers of the Defendant Nout ang stedens of Defencont No.2 would inclode the persons With clesbity al anc the sais sacs! aim enuncioted sbove which is constitutional mandate in the form of Article 41 and ‘Arle 39(0)extands to the persons with dsabilty also. The ‘ecstence of the sald provision In the Copyright Act leary shows the coreciness of the sand of the defendants winch Is tat the Copyright Act is party socal welfare legislation which botences two competing interests. Even the Dell University fers concession in percentage during: admission to the persons with eapbity end al ether Senefs are given go such persons. Ukewse, for educations purposes which ace clesriy ‘covered within Section $230) tthe Books are provided to such persons who are jneluded in the buyers of such books at reasonable prices then the Defendent No.t is rather fuiing the social cause and again comes under the exceptions of Copyright ac, 1957. 19, That the acts of Defendant No.2 as complained of in the resent proceecngs are all ustfable and permissbie acts 36 er the copyright regime In view af the judgments passed by this Court, Detendnt No.2 roves leave to rly upon the sald {Judgments n the present proceedings. 20, That Defendant to.2 submits that Defendant No.2 hes ever artidpated or has any conection or nexus with 223% Defendant No.1 exceat to the extent of permitting the ‘eration ofa photocopy shop inthe premises. 1 is submited that in any cate photocopy is such @ vast activity whieh may inctude photocopying of anything that the cause of action has ‘been purported to be made up by the Plaintis by suggesting thet Defendant No.2 ls lsuing some books for getting them photocopied. Tt IS submtted Defendant No.2 is nowhere Involved in getting any books photocepld for their own purposes nor any person who comes to the Ubrary of Defendant No.2 for ssvance of books dlsloses the purpose for which the books are being taken for issuance, The books are Issued as per the rules ahd regulation of the Library of the Defendant No.2, Defendget No.2 has no participation ether active of paeeive tonaresline sale acts complained of by the Paints against the Defendant No.1. It is factually incorrect that Oefendant No.2 nas lsued books to Defendant no.t for such reproduction. Tt wrongful onthe part of the Paint to state that Defendant No.2 Is gsning something out of such reproduction. All couse of actions is wrongful and cooked up by the Pints, Defendant No.2 has no relation or eo-elation itn Defendant No.1 except that Defendant No.1 Is operating @ photocopy shop et the premises of the collage, It is submited that Defendant No.2 i lew abiding authorty and an of imparting edueston to the students which include ich and oor and access to al books and mater to Ue students 2234 25. That the Osfondiant Ho.2 University J @ prestiious Univers word aver ang has no alm or jective of infringing ‘any law In force much less the Copyright Law In the form of Copyright Act, 1957. ts submitted that whatsoever has been done if at allt so were all done by the Defendant No.2 only Under the Impression that trey are permissible acts and are one bonstdely in order ta serve the gel for which Defendant No.2 University was formed in order to impart education and ve access to the books which are cotter and ct avaiable to the students. Defendant No.2 besides the same has no role to Pay and categorically states that Defendant No.2 has no Intention to breech ony such low by making such reproduction ‘and wil nt make any such reproduction in relation tothe acts complained of in the sue. In any case, the University nas no business with that of Oefendent No.t and therefore the Defendant No.2 cannot be helé guity of any copyright lnfingement. 22, That the Defendant No.2 is in the process of forming 2 Commitee of the Hace of Economics, Sodtology, Commerce ‘and Geography (al consttuent departments ofthe Delhi School ‘of Economics) withthe mandate to explore ways and means to ensure access to esucatonal materals keeping in mind the interests of the students. Defendant No.2 ull explore all the possibile and options incising the options like providing «= books onine dita! holdings, supporting open service etions ‘and such ter measures as may be avalabe to ensure wider access of educational motores for prosicing knowledge and 2240, Information from various open sources and simultaneously taking care ef the rights ofthe publishers. Defendant No.2 is therefore making alts cue stigence and best efforts to evel any such tntitngement actions a the Defendant No.2 hes no Intention of infinging anybody's wor much ess the Paints ‘PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS ‘The University of Delhi! is established and created under the University of Delhi act, 4822 herelaater called the OU Act. Under Section 4 of the OY Act, the University inter ala, can provide for instrueton in| such broches of fearing a5 the University may think fi, and make provision for research end for te sdvancement a sseminstion of knowlege. [REPLY ON MERITS 1. That tne contents of pare of the sult are not denied to the fetent of existence of the Plait Not. However, f Is denied for went of Knowledge that the Plinth No.1 hos presence in more than ity countrles and Innumersble publestions worcwige in the areas stated in the para under reply, Its cenied end slsputes that Mr. Vishal Auje isthe CConsttuted attorney of the Palit Not and Is duly ‘authocaed to sgn, verfy and Institute the present proceedings on behalf ofthe Paint No. 2. Thatthe contents of para 2 ofthe sut are denied for want of knowledge, I ie denied that Pointif No. te the exclusive leensee of the Pint No.2 in Tala and Plinkit No.3 is an Interested and affected party whenever the rights of Paint 224) No.2 ar infringe an vlolated in india, te submited tht te Paints have not ies lansing agreament amongst the Paints in this respect. I ls submitted that Inthe absence of writen icensing agreement, plaints’ srt is defective a5, not complying withthe provtons of Section 30 and Section 30 A ofthe Copyright Act, 1957. It's denled that Mr. Vishal ‘Ahuja Is the Consttuted Attorney of the Plant No.2 anc the Plentif No.3 end duly authorized to sign, very and Instote the present proceedings. ‘Tat the contents of per 4 ofthe sult ere denied as wrong ‘and Incorrect for want of knowiedge. It Is denied that Mr Vishal Ahuja Is the Consttuted Atorey of the Paint No.é ‘2d the Point No.5 ané ly autnorzea to sign, very and Institute the present proceedings. That the contents of para 4 of the sut are Genie as wrong ‘and Incorrect. It le eles thatthe defendants have done ‘any unauthorized reprocuton and issuance of the copies of the plaitifs. Rest/ remaining contents ofthe para under reply including the annexure to the same are denied in toto, There is no reproduction of the plaints work for ‘manifold reasons Including the reasons which are exceptions for the purposes of Section 52(N() of the Copyright Act, ‘Thot the contents of aii ofthe sult are Genie as wrong and Incorect I le denled that Plant are the onners of the copyright in ther respective publications fist publsned 2242 In Indl which consotute Iiterary work as defined in the Copyright Act, 2957. 1 i submites that plant have completely flea to asciose the essential ingreclents of the copyright, 1 Is submited that he plaints ere asserting Infingement on the basis of unregisteres copyright. I is submitted that the qecassary ingredients of the sl Lunvegistered copyright} clude the name and tle of the respective books, tne name of the authors, name of the ‘owners end the chain of tse as tothe ownership esto how {the paints elim to be the owners of the sal copyright Paints elther have set up such 0 cose inthe pint nor have they narrated separately in tre plait 35 to how they ‘tained the status of oumers ofthe copyright and in respect of which books authores by whom. In the absence of any such events, plants are csantited to urge ownership of the copyright 26 the lbint lacks materiel particulars end ‘verments, eng a6 such the instant suit f Fable to be lsmissed disclosing no cause of action under the provisions of Order 7 Rute 11-8 CPC ‘That the contents of para 6 ofthe sult are denied as wrong ‘and incorrect. 21s dene tht copyright with respect tothe publications in question vests wit te paints and plaintits have any exclusive right under Section 16(a) () & (ofthe Copyright Act, eis denied that there i any reproduction and 'suance of copies of he plants works which Inringes the copyright ol the plantifs. Ie ie submited that the Plains nave not eiscosed about the ovmersip tl Inthe 223 favour and in te absence of the some, paints are sented to urge ownership of tre copyright as tne paint lacks material particule and averments, and as such the Instant sult is abe to be demise 1s reply to para 7 of the sult, 1 submitted that the notations present, as statec nthe pare under rep, 20 the publications of the plantins are denied for want of knowledge. 6. Tate contents ofr ot eat ae dead a wong dd are dv fo want fk ate oetnsr Na ache as pose aa ate Defer opti reatng/ unin ees snow he Dstt WI slog usr Of the sald cove tke fr mate sale the ong wrong INerton fo he lant. Rey renaning that there Is m0 reproduction of the plaints wore for 22 4y manifold rebsons including the reasons which are exceptions for the purposes of Section S2{IKI) of the Copyright Act, 1957 were such acs afe permissible, 9-10 That the contents of para! @ to 10 of the sult are denied as wrong and incorrect. 11S wrong and incorect to say that the Facuty teaching at the University of Dalh Is encouraging the students &> purchase the same ffom the Defendant No.t Instead of plintits' publications. Pants are making wrong averments without any basis. I¢ is denied that the plentins have any copyrighted work which is reproduced by Defendant No.1. The information given in ressonse to the RTI fod by the Diainits is mater of record. It is submited that no such commitment was made by Defendant No. for Defendant No.2 ln reaton'to infringement of copyright. Whatsoever the general ‘terme may be there between Defendant No.1" and Defendant No.2 cannot culminate into an assumption that it is for Infringing purposes. I is submited that In any case thet wes one 2s © port of working arrangement between Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 and Oefendant No.2 nas no co relation with infinging ectvties as alleged. ‘Therefore, the said fact by itself doesnot aid the case ofthe plant for thie court to beleve thet Defendant No.2 has any participation. I Is ‘submitted that Defendant No.t Is operating photocopy shop atthe premises in question under the Defendant No.2. tis not unusual or abnormel thet the colleges and unhersties have photocopy shop nearby so a5 to fecitate the students and thet oes not stiact any such Influence as to fringement. B24" ‘Terefore the sid allegation Is bogus, sham and baseless, Its submitted nat the Detendent No.ne 2 has no intentions \ahatsoever to gain any lic profs or In any manner infnging ‘anybody's copysgnt mush fess the paints herein but only to ‘educate the researchers os wel ag students inorder to provide them the best possible ecuction at repsonsble prices and proving the foiity to make coses of Selected pages of books so that they may equally be well placed to take such examinations wih those students whe can affors the books Involving higher costs, [tf eubenttes that the Copyright Act 1957 a5, amended by The Copyright (Amended) Act, 20:2, specically engrafts such exception to. the Infngement rneple by stating that any reproduction andthe copies made 5 part of questions to be answared for exeminetion or answers to such questions or anything whieh any work inthe course of instruction by the teacrer from within the purview of fntingement. 11-13 That the contents of pafa 11-13 of the sutt are denied as denied tht the Defendant No.2 Is wrong and Incorect. 1 ining any eps! products fom any such un-euthoried reoroductin of he pint’ publications. Res remaining contents of pera 12 ace also denad. Ti denied for want of knowledge that the Defendant No Is copying the slants! bublcatons. which Ineudes copyright decarations of the respecive paints, tis ures denled that there is any ima fac proot of plants copyright In the stated werk and plbintins nave any exclusive right or vested rights in the same F246 =I ahd re oe a ee ee Cent ere papioielaphipieeinapepaieshs oa ence mt ean mar eee eee in warm ae rae araanalenst ons na ‘opportunites to develop in a healthy manner and would also 2Ayy fot hesitate within Iss economic ezpacty to make effective brovslon In order to exerse ther ight to etucston. Such provisions Ia the Consstuson are indlentive of the welfare of the citzanry in the form of youth and the State duty to encourage talent by making the efactve provisions to exerise ‘ete ight to eduction thereby nurturing them to develop in 2 heathy manner. This wil certainly Include the measures ike the present one where Defendant No.2 within Rs eeanomie capacty, whatever = avaiable to Sefendant Ne2, le bpresening the courses to the students of Delhi University Which Includes both rch and poor by feitating them In the form of Derendant No.1 providing protocopies of pages fom Selected chapters in books whlch are somehow giving them ‘200d hold of education no ere otherwise Incapable of purchasing costly books je wo thelr Ngher prices. If the sald aims and objectives are sden uncer the State Directives In the CConsttution rea with Copyright Act, ii clear that Defendant No.2 i nutiing exe commene of the Consttution by making such effective measures and rather working within the onsttatonel tramemerk and not infinging. anybody's work rh less the plaints nerein. 1 wel settied principle that the consttional commend inthe form of State Directives 35 well 25 fundamental rights operate on a higher pedestal than the larger alm prescitee under the Constitution, then the Interpretation should be glen to the egisaton so that both the consttationalframenoré and the statutory rights sneulé wore hand in nand and the sag socio-economic measure should net 22 be alowed to be disturbed by employing the rig interpretation ‘and oversvetching the statutory nights beyond the “onstituional framewore. The answering defendant submits ‘that this Is even taken care of by the legisature by enacting ‘Section 52(2() thereby prescribing such exceptions which are tbe seen from the gasses of whet Is the Intended purpose ‘and avowed objectives from the consttutionel framework rather than in a errow compass. Consequenby, the actions of Defendant No2 i thing but almed at fulling. the constitutional mancote ane not intended to infringing anybody's wor lung hat ofthe pints Nerein 14-17 Tat te contents of pore 16 t0 17 of the sut are denied as wrong ang incorrect, It Is danied thot Defendont No. 2 has permitted reproducing and isulng ary unauthorized copes of the plaints’ publications for commercial purpose of the copyrighted work ofthe plain. Its denies that defendants have made ony iol -eproduton in sale of ifinging coples lanich cannot be permitted under the Copyright Act. Tt is deniea that the actions of Defendant No. 2 are unfair. Its evied that tne Ostendent No. 2 is destroying the market for the plaints’ lophimate publetons. 1's specially denied thet Defendant No.2 Is engaged inthe business of unauthorized photocopying for proft with the eid of Defendant No.t It is submited that pnts have completely fled to disciose the essenval ingredients of the copyright. Its submited that the Dioitts are asserting Infingement on the basis of lmegistered copyright. It is submitted that the necessary PONY Ingrestonts of the salé unregistered copyrights include the fname and thle of the respective books, the name of the authors, name of the owners and the chain of ttle as to the Counership as to how the plaints claim to be the owners ofthe ‘3d copyright. Pants netner nave setup sucha casein the pibint nor hove they narated separately Inthe plantas to how they attained the status of owners of the copyright ang in respect of whlch books autrored oy whom. Tt Is futher submited thatthe copyright i 2 piece of legislation. The sal¢ legisaton is almed at protecting and safeguarding the Interest of authors and owress. It zannot be lst sight ofthat the seme very legslation balens the competing Interest of the Socety ‘and those who are mefibers of the socety so thet the protection given to the authors should not uinecessariy impinge upon the legitimate acts done by bona fide persons ‘Such balancing of the 8s‘ core In the form of presrbing lahat infringement is and what is not? Once the Copyright Act Ceary provides exceptions go fer as it relates to reproduction oF eny work done by 2 teacher a @ pupil in course of instruction ‘or in furenerance of answering the questions or part of questions to be answered In examination, the sald provision hos to be interpreted in the light of corresponding benef which (5 to be given to the Socety sos to full the sacl! benent the talent in order to enabie them to study the books and smeking them avaliable at reasonebie costs by providing Photocopy of selected pages of chapters for educational pumoses. . Therefore, he acs of Defendant No. 21s far and 9280 bona fide and Inthe interest of the society. Is dened that elendants would nat constiute far desing in the plainite publications, It le denied that with the actons of Defendant No.4 and Defencant No.2 there would be no need for the students to purchase plant’ publeatons. It is denied that unless the activities of the detendents are resveined by an order of injunction passed by this Honbe Court plaints would be deprved of a legitimate revenue stream which they would hove otherwise been entited to, I is submited that the resent suit also barred under the prince of le minimis non curat lex. ‘The sac principle enunlates that te aw oes not take care of iva things. The bald Latin maxi states that the law does not toke into account the tiv things. It Is submitted that the present case le such 2 case where the Gefendants have just implemented the syllabus for the purposes of imparting education and to full the: larger constitutional gosl. The plalatifs wlth the ulterior motive to bv chasine tevalies. This Court should analyze trom the perspective of 9 reasonsble mon and the question tobe asked is "whether such tivities are (0 be looked Into In such @ serous nature by cling them an intingement when they are zpschicaly provided 22 9 port of exeaption in te Copyright ‘Act Therefore, Seaty the paints are guilty of approaching this Hon'ble Court onthe basis of trivia things. It further Genles that the defenconts are indulged into any mala de 225) aetties by causing fancial loss to the plaintifs and the Interests ofthe pints ane the students are hindered. 18-21 That the contents of para 18 to 21 ofthe Sut are enied as wrong end incorrect. 11s denied thatthe plants nave been Joined inthe present sut 25 co plants since ther respective sights to rele arise out of the same act and transaction or the series of acts of the defendants arayed inthe present suit. It 's by doing this, common huestions of law or fact would arse. Its submittae that the prpsont sult 8s fled by the paints is barre under the provisions of Order 1 Rule tread with Order 2 Rule 3 CPC for non Joincer and mis Joinder of plaints and causes of actions as ne common questions of fact and law are tvising out in the Instant cese. Therefore, the sut is bed for non finger and mis joiner of partes inasmuch asthe plaints are avoiding court fee in tne matter by not insttting separete suits against the defendants and have deliberately Fled single ‘suit with the utero matives when the grevance of sini Not on one hand and thet of Plaintif No.2, 3, 4 and 5 colecively on the other Nand doas not arise out of the said transaction, It is one thing to say that the grievance is common; however, tis another thing to say that they aise out ofthe same trensaction ond there Is any nexus’ ot the $9 very isis in the some transaction wnich enables them to sve together the defendants in 2 single sul, There i= no nexus between Plaintitt No.2, Paint No.3 and Pin No.S, Such tests are not qualified in the present case and therefore the Instant su cannat be insetute as such Inthe present form by B22 the plsntine together agains the defendants and therefore the sults lnle to be dlemiste for want of court fee and for want cof mi finder ang non fonder of partes andthe paints may be called upon to insthute present suit in accordance with fw. 1 is further denied thet there Is any cause of action which ‘arose In the month of At 2012 when ehe plaints were informed thatthe cefendont No.1 Is engaged In unauthorized reproduction and cstibution of plintite” publications and it further arose when the plants purchased through Investigator ‘any such materia, I is Frther denied that the cause of action is continuing til te time the defences are restrained by the order ofthis Hon'ble Court. Rest/ remaining contents of the pores under reply are also denied in tote. Defendant No.2 Is committed to advance the cause of higher education and make Ie accesible to alls students. 1 reiterated that there Is no reproduction of the plaints work for manifold. reasons including the reasons which are exceptions for the purposes of Section Sai of the Conyright Act, 1957 were such acts are permissible, 1 subritted thatthe Delhi Univers imparts Cesucation to the students of ll atepories, ‘There are students vino are not very well to do and unable to purchase books, ‘though the some are avaiable Inthe Library ofthe University “Therefore, the Oefendent to.2 cannot be sccused of env Intitngennent oF the platter right, sf omy in the said copyright. In view of thd pretmicary objections, preliminary submissions and averments made by te Defendant, the prayers claimed by the plantife cannot be granted in fevor of the plants and agains the defencents herein In the sfresaic facts and circumstances, it x humbly prayed thatthe suf the plaints be cismissed with exemplary cots wg de ENO?” uaa ‘THROUGH EEN (01S. MANINDER ACHARYA) ‘COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO.2, 1429 LAWHERS CHAMBERS ELA HIGH COURT, VERIFICATION: 121s vers on this ___ day of Octover 2012 that the contents of paras 1 to 21 ofthe WRITTEN STATEMENT on ments are true and correct from my knowledge 28 well as on the basis of information

    You might also like