Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order of the (‘CPC’) seeking summary judgment in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, Anish Dayal, J.*, referred to Section of the (‘the Act’) and opined that the provision provides for a prescribed form to be utilized for relinquishment of a copyright and that right would extinguish by the renunciate, only if the person transferred or relinquished the right by a process known to law, and not otherwise. In the present case, the Court noticed that it was not asserted that such relinquishment had been executed by Srila Prabhupada of his copyright in his literary works. Therefore, in law, whether sanyasi or otherwise, relinquishment had certainly not occurred.
Thus, considering that the defendant’s acceptance of injunction and the existence of the copyright in Srila Prabhupada of his works, the Court opined that there was no other aspect which remained for adjudication. Accordingly, the Court opined that the procedure under Order 13A of CPC had been complied with and decreed the suit in plaintiff’s favour and against the defendant.
Background
The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust India-plaintiff was a public charitable trust registered under the (‘the Trusts Act’). It was engaged in printing, publishing, distributing books, writings, and speeches of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (‘Srila Prabhupada’), who was the author/settlor of plaintiff. Srila Prabhupada was a scholar, philosopher, spiritual teacher, prolific author, and exponent of Vedic literature. It was claimed that he relinquished his worldly possessions and became a sanyasi in 1959. He also established the ‘International Society for Krishna Consciousness’ (‘ISKCON’), which was registered in 1971 under the Trusts Act.
Through his lifetime, Srila Prabhupada delivered thousands of lectures, wrote innumerable letters and books of his teachings, which were translations and explanations of ancient Vedic texts and the Bhagavad Gita. These books were used as the primary medium to propagate ISKCON, which eventually became a world-wide movement.
Plaintiff trust was established by a trust deed dated 30-03-1972 wherein it was stated that the settlor/author was entitled to copyright in his writings, and publication rights of the writings were assigned to the trustees. Srila Prabhupada passed away in November 1977 and the plaintiff went on to edit and format his manuscripts, writings and speeches, and published them as books. These publications achieved huge success, and several versions of the translations of the same were currently being disseminated.
Plaintiff claimed that in December 2020, during an anti-piracy sweep, it transpired that certain website such as that of the defendant, , were carrying complete copies of the books in which copyright was vested in plaintiff. Since, there was no authorisation to any third party, including defendant, to reproduce the books, store them in an electronic format, communicate them to the public, or create sound recordings, plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from infringing their copyright under Section 14(a) of the Act.
In February 2021, the present Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendant, from engaging in or authorizing the reproduction of the plaintiff’s books and artworks in any material form. Subsequently, in compliance of the injunction order, the defendant took down all references and content relating to plaintiff’s books, artworks, and sound recordings from all possible media.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that a renunciate was a person who, by statement, utterance, writing or otherwise renounced or gave up possessions, rights or claims. The legal twin of this concept could be found in the word ‘relinquishment’. The Court opined that during his life, a human being became entitled to tangible or intangible property and thus, various aspects of ownership, possession, transfer, enjoyment and exploitation of such right in the property arise. However, a person who sought to renounce the world and gave up his rights to property in law, must do so within the recognized rubric of relinquishment.
The Court referred to Section 21 of the Act and opined that the provision provides for a prescribed form to be utilized for relinquishment of a copyright and that right would extinguish by the renunciate, only if the person transferred or relinquished the right by a process known to law, and not otherwise. In the present case, it was not asserted that such relinquishment had been executed by Srila Prabhupada of his copyright in his literary works. Therefore, in law, whether sanyasi or otherwise, relinquishment had certainly not occurred.
The Court opined that whether copyright in Srila Prabhupada’s works was extinguished upon his self-declared renunciation in 1959 and did the act of renunciation, pursuant to a belief or faith resulted in extinguishment of property rights in a person. The Court opined that there could be a situation where it might be implied that by subjecting themselves to a monastic order, the right and property would be deemed to be transferred. However, even this hypothetical situation required evidence to prove that the renunciate had agreed to transfer his property to a beneficiary in a particular manner.
Thus, considering that the defendant’s acceptance of injunction and the existence of the copyright in Srila Prabhupada of his works, the Court opined that there was no other aspect which remained for adjudication. There was also no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence, especially since the trust deed by which copyright was assigned in plaintiff’s favour was registered and the defendant did not claim to be either the owner, assignee or licensee of the said right.
Accordingly, the Court opined that the procedure under Order 13A of CPC had been complied with and decreed the suit in plaintiff’s favour and against the defendant.
[Bhaktivedanta Book Trust India v. ., CS(COMM) 88 of 2021, decided on 05-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Anil Dayal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Saikrishna Rajagopal, Himanshu Bagai, Deepshikha Sarkar and Bhanu, Advocates;
For the Defendant: Siddharthan, Advocate
The post appeared first on .