Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Restraining Publisher From Using Cartoonist Narayan Debnath's Works

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya passed the order on January 21, 2026, while dismissing an appeal filed by the publishing house against an ad-interim injunction dated January 9, 2026, issued by the District Judge at Alipore.

Rejecting the publisher's submission that the suit was barred as it was based on the same cause of action as a previous suit, the Court observed, “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.”

The dispute arose from a suit filed by Archana Debnath, the widow of late Narayan Debnath, along with one of his sons, who claimed rights over the author's literary and artistic works on the basis of a Will. They alleged that the publishing house continued to publish and commercially exploit the works even after the expiry of a two-year publishing agreement without paying adequate royalty.

Earlier, the District Judge at Alipore had restrained the publisher from printing, selling, or distributing the works of the late author in any form, including through online platforms and e-commerce portals, until February 9, 2026.

Challenging the injunction before the High Court, the publishing house argued that the suit had been instituted to disrupt its participation in a book fair and that the injunction would cause it severe financial losses.

The publisher also alleged suppression of material facts, arguing that an earlier copyright suit filed by Narayan Debnath during his lifetime had been dismissed for default, rendering the present suit barred by law. It was further submitted that the author's heirs had no requisite standing to institute the suit, as probate of the Will had not yet been granted.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that an executor or legatee is legally entitled to take intermediate steps to protect the estate of a deceased person pending the grant of probate.

Upholding the maintainability of the suit, the Court observed, “Seen in such perspective, the plaintiff no. 1, in the capacity of executor and the plaintiff no. 2, as legatee of the will of Late Narayan Debnath, are fully entitled to maintain the suit even before the probate is granted.”

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. &Anr. vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., the Court reiterated that in matters of copyright infringement, injunctions ordinarily follow once a prima facie case is established.

Rejecting the publishing house's plea for lifting the injunction on the ground that the author's legal heirs could be adequately compensated, the Court observed that, “As such, even a basic assessment of liquidated damages might be impossible, since the extent to which such publications are spread out and even the nature and variety of media through which the said publications are being distributed cannot be quantified at the first blush, unless a detailed exercise of evidentiary assessment is undertaken in the suit, which can be done only at the stage of trial.”

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the injunction and dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that the observations made in the order would not affect the final adjudication of the pending suit.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Saptansu Basu with Advocates Ayan Banerjee, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Partha Pratim De, Pinaki Brata Ghosh and Abhinaba Roy

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Sardar Amjad Ali with Advocates Susandip Pathak, Sucharita Ray and Abdul Wajid