Calcutta High Court Rejects Injunction Against New Central Book Agency After Years Of Inaction

The Calcutta High Court on 27 August dismissed an interim injunction application filed by Pares Chandra Das, author and original copyright holder of two English grammar textbooks, and his son Amitava Das, against their long-time publisher, New Central Book Agency Private Limited.

Justice Krishna Rao held that authors cannot seek an interim injunction against continued publication of their books after allowing the publisher to publish them for years despite claiming that the publication agreements had expired. The Bench observed:

"After 21st April, 2007 till 22nd August, 2020, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps by restraining the defendants for publishing, printing and marketing the said books. The plaintiffs allowed the defendants to continue with the work."

The dispute arose from two publication agreements executed between the parties in 2001 and 2002. Neither agreement specified a term.

The plaintiffs sought to restrain New Central Book Agency from printing, marketing or selling “Applied English Grammar and Composition Anglo Bengali (For High Schools)” and “Beginner's Applied English Grammar, Composition & Translation”. They also sought a permanent injunction against further publication and appointment of a Special Officer to seize existing stock.

They argued that under Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, an assignment without a stated period is deemed to operate for five years. Since the agreements were silent on duration, they contended that the licences expired in 2006 and 2007 respectively, making subsequent publication an infringement.

They also relied on a 2020 Co-Publishing Agreement between New Central Book Agency and Katha-O-Kahini Prakashani Pvt. Ltd., contending that the agreement had expired in 2023 and that the publisher consequently had no authority to continue publishing the books.

The Court noted that the five-year deemed term under Section 19(5) had expired on 21 April 2007, but the plaintiffs took no action against the publisher for more than a decade thereafter.

It also considered whether the 2020 Co-Publishing Agreement had extinguished the original publication agreements. Referring to Section 62 of the Contract Act, which deals with novation of contracts, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lata Construction v. Dr. Ramachandra Ramniklal Shah (2000), which requires “complete substitution of a new contract in place of the old” for novation.

Finding no such substitution, the Bench observed that “Clause 16 of the Co-Publishing Agreement expressly provides that Royalty shall continue to be paid to the author in terms of the original agreements. If the parties intended to substitute or extinguish the publication agreements, there would have been no reason to preserve the Royalty obligations arising in the said agreements.”

It also noted a possible non-joinder of parties, observing that Abhijit Das, whom the plaintiffs claimed was the copyright holder of one of the books, had not been impleaded in the suit. On irreparable harm, Justice Rao held:

“This Court also did not find that the plaintiffs will suffer any irreparable loss and injury as since April, 2007 till 25th August, 2020, the plaintiffs had allowed the defendant no.1 to continue with the original agreements.”

Accordingly, the High Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour and dismissed the interim injunction application, thereby allowing New Central Book Agency to continue publishing the books pending trial.