Summary
In the case of Pares Chandra Das & Anr. v. New Central Book Agency Private Limited & Ors., the Calcutta High Court dealt with a dispute between the author of two English grammar books and their long standing publisher. The case raised questions about who owned the copyright, whether the author had validly transferred copyright to his wife and later to his sons, and whether the publisher could continue publishing the books. At the interim stage, the Court found that documents establishing the alleged assignments had not been produced and refused to restrain the publisher from continuing publication.
Background
Copyright Publishing Dispute
This case relates to two English grammar books titled Applied English Grammar and Composition Anglo Bengali (For High Schools) and Beginner’s Applied English Grammar, Composition and Translation (Anglo Bengali For Beginners). Pares Chandra Das was their author and claimed to be their first copyright owner.
The author entered into publication agreements with New Central Book Agency in 2001 and 2002. Under those agreements, the publisher received rights to print and publish the books, while copyright was stated to remain with the author or copyright holder. The agreements did not specify their duration.
Publication continued for many years. In 2020, the author consented to an arrangement under which New Central entered into a three year co publishing agreement with Katha O Kahini Prakashani Private Limited. The author’s consent letter stated that he was the basic copyright holder and that he had conferred his copyright on his wife, Sima Das. It also stated that after expiry of the co publishing arrangement, the author, copyright holder or the author’s legal heirs could decide matters concerning publication.
Sima Das died in July 2021. Shortly thereafter, the author wrote to the publisher stating that the copyright holders had been changed. Abhijit Das was named copyright holder of one book and Amitava Das of the other.
The dispute arose when the author and the other plaintiffs sought to stop further publication of the books.
Questions Before the Court
-
- Whether copyright in the books continued with the author despite the publication rights granted to the publisher.
- Whether the alleged transfer of copyright from the author to his wife had been established in accordance with the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Whether the author’s subsequent letter naming his sons as copyright holders established a valid transfer of copyright to them.
- Whether the absence of an assignment document and the non joinder of one of the stated copyright holders affected the plaintiffs’ claim for interim relief.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
The plaintiffs argued that:
-
- The author was the first owner of copyright and the publisher received only publication rights.
- As the publication agreements did not state their duration, the statutory five year period under Section 19 applied.
- The publisher therefore had no continuing right to publish the books after expiry or termination of its rights.
- The author and the copyright holders were free to decide who could publish the books after the co publishing agreement came to an end.
The defendants argued that:
-
- The original publication agreements had continued for more than two decades with the author’s knowledge and consent.
- No deed of assignment had been produced to establish the alleged transfer of copyright to the author’s sons.
- If Sima Das had become copyright owner, the plaintiffs had also failed to establish through documents how copyright subsequently devolved upon or was assigned to Amitava Das and Abhijit Das.
- Abhijit Das, who was stated to hold copyright in one of the books, had not been made a party to the suit.
Court’s Analysis of Authorship and Copyright Assignment
The Court first referred to Section 19 of the Copyright Act. It noted that an assignment had to be in writing and signed by the assignor or the assignor’s authorised agent. It also referred to the statutory rule that where an assignment did not specify its duration, the period would be deemed to be five years.
The publication agreements presented a different practical problem. Though the five year period had ended in 2007, the author allowed the publisher to continue printing and publishing the books for several years. In 2020, he went further and expressly consented to New Central entering into the co publishing arrangement. According to the Court, this conduct had to be considered while deciding whether interim relief could be granted.
The ownership trail presented another difficulty.
The author’s 2020 consent letter stated that he was the basic copyright holder and had conferred copyright upon his wife, Sima Das. The Court noted, however, that no document evidencing such transfer had been disclosed.
After Sima Das died, the author sent another letter in July 2021 changing the names of the copyright holders to his sons, Abhijit Das and Amitava Das. The judgment did not treat the description of a person as copyright holder in that letter as sufficient, at the interim stage, to resolve the chain of copyright ownership.
The composition of the suit created a further problem. Though Abhijit Das had been identified as copyright holder of one of the books, he had not been joined as either plaintiff or defendant. The Court therefore stated that there was an issue concerning non joinder as well.
The Court also considered the nature of the publisher’s rights. Referring to an earlier Calcutta High Court decision, it recorded the principle that publication was an incident of copyright. Where copyright remained with the author, the publisher’s right ordinarily existed for the period for which the author had granted it, unless copyright itself had been absolutely assigned.
At the same time, the Court found that the later co publishing agreement had not been shown to substitute or extinguish the original publication agreements. Royalty continued to be payable to the author under the original agreements, which supported the publisher’s contention that those agreements continued to govern the relationship.
Findings
The findings of the Court are as follows:
- The plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case for the interim injunction sought against the publisher.
- No document had been disclosed to establish the author’s stated conferral of copyright upon Sima Das.
- Questions remained regarding the subsequent identification of Amitava Das and Abhijit Das as copyright holders.
- Abhijit Das, who was stated to own copyright in one of the books, was not a party to the suit.
- The original publication agreements had continued to operate for several years with the author’s knowledge, and the author had subsequently consented to the co publishing arrangement.
- The plaintiffs had not established at the interim stage that the original publication agreements had been extinguished by the later co publishing agreement.
- The balance of convenience and irreparable injury requirements were also not established.
The Court therefore dismissed the application for interim relief.
Relevant Paras
Paragraph 19
“Assignment or partial assignment has to be implied, according to us, in order to give business efficacy to the agreement between the author and the publisher. But the assignment or partial assignment, if any, is co-terminus with the agreement unless the subject matter of assignment is the copyright itself and such assignment is absolute in nature. Any other interpretation shall render the ownership of the copyright meaningless. Publication is an incident of the copyright and cannot exist in isolation. When the copyright is admittedly vested in the author, the right to publish is also vested in him except for such period which may have been granted by him. The grant in this case is evidenced by the agreement which is terminable at will and has been terminated.”
Paragraph 21
“The Co-Publishing Agreement is for a period of three years with effect from 25th August, 2020. In the consent letter, it is mentioned that the author is the basic copyright holder and he confers his copyright to his wife Sima Das but to this effect, there is no document disclosed by the plaintiffs. The consent letter of the plaintiff no.1 also discloses the author or the copy right holder or the author’s heir will have the right to take decision in the matter of publication of the said books after expiry of the period of the agreement or it may continue if the three parties are satisfied.”
Paragraph 26
“As per letter dated 20th July, 2021, the plaintiff no.1 has changed the name of copyright holders but only one copyright holder, namely, Amitava Das along with the author has filed the suit and Abhijit Das is neither made as plaintiff or defendant, thus there is also an issue whether the suit suffers from non-joinder of party.”
Case Citation
Pares Chandra Das & Anr. v. New Central Book Agency Private Limited & Ors., G.A. No. 1 of 2023 in I.P. (COM) No. 11 of 2024, Calcutta High Court, judgment delivered 27 August 2026, Indian Kanoon, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129581680/ (visited 7 September 2026).
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts.