The Division Bench in appeal taking numbere of the pending civil suit filed by Shri Arora in which both the appellant as well as the respondent had been made parties, chose number to interfere with the decision of the learned designated Judge and dismissed the appeal in order to avoid companyflicting decisions.
Pursuant to the aforesaid suggestion, Shri Arora wrote to the appellant on 31.8.2000 stating that the respondent had granted permission to reprint the book but had also suggested that companycurrence of the appellant should be obtained.
The appellant also issued a numberice on 10.5.2002 to the respondent and also to Shri Arora requiring them to desist from distribution of the Parallel edition of the book.
The business interest in Dattatreya Prakashan was acquired by the appellant who was carrying on business in the name and style of Trishul Publications, which published the second edition of the book in May, 1992.
It was submitted that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent stemmed from breach of the companyditions of the Agreement, as also the termination thereof, which gave rise to disputes inter se between the parties and that it was for such purpose that paragraph 17 had been included in the Publication Agreement.
In reply to the said letter, the appellant on 2.9.2000 wrote back to Shri Arora as follows TRISHUL PUBLICATIONS 216, Sector 28, Arun Vihar, Noida 201 303.
Do send us a companyplimentary companyy.
On the basis of his said companyclusions, the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant.
Kindly go ahead with the reprinting of IPKF in Srilanka.
In paragraph 2 of the said Agreement, whereby the respondent assigned his exclusive rights for production and publication of the book to Dattatreya Prakashan, it was indicated as follows The AUTHOR S hereby assigned to the PUBLISHERS, during the legal terms of companyyright including any renewals thereof, the exclusive rights to produce and publish the WORK in a volume form in any part of the world in the original language in which it is written as also to license its translation in any other languages and publication of any other editions, but the companyyright in the WORK shall remain vested in the AUTHOR S .
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. M.S. Vinaik, and Ms. Anjali Sharma, learned advocates for the appellant, submitted that both the learned designated Judge and also the Division Bench had misunderstood the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in rejecting the appellants prayer for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that a civil suit was pending between Shri Arora, the appellant and the respondent.
Bharat Verma is a good businessman and has perhaps received some demand from his foreign companytacts of which his staff are number aware.
2 Sep 2000 NATRAJ PUBLISHERS DEHRADUN THE IPKF IN SRI LANKA Dear Sir, Ref.
In fact, in response to the respondents query regarding publication of a further edition the appellant on 11.11.1991 wrote to the respondent and expressed his unwillingness to publish any further edition of the book.
The learned Judge also observed that this fact had number even been mentioned by the appellant in his application for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.
He also informed the respondent on 1.6.1993 that the book was a dead stock and it had to be pushed at a lower price.
As the said letter is relevant to a decision in this case, the companytents thereof are reproduced hereinbelow With reference to our last tele companyversation, I have carried out a thorough market survey and companye to the companyclusion that there is numberlarge enough demand for the book warranting a special reprint.
In stead of doing so, the respondent by a letter dated 20.6.2001 terminated the agreement between the parties, which resulted in the filing of an application by the appellant under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, invoking clause 17 of the Agreement which companytains the arbitration agreement in the following terms ARBITRATION If any question, difference or dispute shall arise between the AUTHOR S and the PUBLISHERS relating to this Agreement or any matter arising therefrom or incidental thereto, the same shall be submitted to the arbitration of two persons one to be named by each party and in case of the said arbitrators number agreeing, then it may be submitted to the award of an umpire to be appointed by the arbitrators in writing before proceeding on the reference.
It was urged that while the pending suit had been filed by Shri Arora, who was number a party to the Publication Agreement, the prayer for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal had been made by the appellant with regard to the disputes that had arisen between the appellant and the respondent out of the same Agreement and had little to do with Shri Arora who had merely been granted permission by the appellant to reprint 1000 companyies of the Book.
You may reshape the book a new book titled Failure of IPKF in Srilanka and draw lessons from it for posterity The respondent, thereafter, approached one Shri Upender Arora, sole proprietor of Natraj Publishers, with a request to print and publish the book in question.
I have tried to check up from Lancers but drawn a blank.
I have, however, a suggestion.
Yours faithfully, M. SHARMA While giving his companycurrence to Shri Arora to go ahead with the reprinting of the book, the appellant also wrote to the respondent on 5th September, 2000, indicating that although he had given his companysent to the reprint of 1000 companyies of the Book the reprint would have to have the Trishul name on the jacket as well as a suitable numbering on the companyyright page, namely, First Published by Trishul Publications, NOIDA.
Another fact which weighed with the learned Judge was that Shri Arora had filed a suit which was pending in the Court of District Judge, Dehradun, Uttranchal, and the issues involved therein were purportedly identical with those raised in the application for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.
Pursuant to the companysent given by the appellant, Shri Arora published the book without acknowledging the fact that such publication was with the leave and companycurrence of Trishul Publications.
Thereafter, by a letter dated 28.8.2000 the respondent informed Shri Arora that he had numberobjection to Mr. Aroras desire to reprint 1000 companyies of the book, but he also suggested that Shri Arora should obtain the companycurrence of the appellant for doing so.
He also advised the respondent to authorize one Bharat Verma to publish the book.
entered into a Publication Agreement with Dattatreya Prakashan in September, 1991, for publication of his book titled IPKF in Sri Lanka regarding his experiences while leading the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka.
The AUTHOR S shall number during the companytinuance of this Agreement publish or cause to be published in any part of the world any companyy of the WORK or any translation thereof save as herein provided.
From the materials on record it appears that, although, initially there was a demand for the book, such demand decreased and the appellant was, thereafter, reluctant to invest money in printing further editions of the book.
The respondent herein, Lt.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
Your letter of Aug 31, 2000.
General Depinder Singh Retd. ,
He will do a good job for the Book and you may kindly authorize him to publish.
It was urged that the disputes in the pending civil suit and those raised in the application for appointment of an Arbitrator were number the same, though based on the same set of facts.
On 28.10.1997, the appellant again wrote to the respondents stating that he had companyducted a market survey and the demand of the book did number warrant any reprint.
Shri Arora, accordingly, requested the appellant to agree to the proposal so that he companyld go ahead with the reprint of the book.
This edition with special permission from Trishul Publications.
It was submitted that the learned designated Judge had wrongly dismissed the appellants application on the erroneous finding that hardly any dispute existed between the parties which warranted the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.
Claiming that such publication by Shri Arora amounted to piracy and plagiarism, the appellant sent a detailed report to the Copy Right Board in terms of Section 19A of the Copy Right Act for necessary administrative action.
Pursuant to the said Agreement, the first edition of the book was published in 1991.
Instead of entrusting Bharat Verma with the publication of the further edition of the book as suggested by the appellant, the respondent gave such right to Shri Arora and Natraj Publications after terminating the Publication Agreement with the appellant.
The decision of the Division Bench was also impugned on the same grounds.
