Delhi District Court
M/S Orange Education Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Partha Majumdar on 11 February, 2026
CNR No. DLCT010003452024 IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA: DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03: CENTRAL : TIS HAZARI COURTS (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI. CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 In the matter of :- M/S ORANGE EDUCATION PVT. LTD. (Parent Body of M/s ORANGE AVA') Through Mr. Sourabh Dwivedi Having its Office at 9, Daryaganj, Near LIC Office New Delhi Email - [email protected] Phone - 8285668850 ........Plaintiff Versus 1. MR. Partha Majumdar R/o: Flat SF - 09, Sneha Sindhu Apartments No.25 Shampura Main Road, [Ex-parte vide KB Sandra, RT Nagar Bengaluru - 560032 order dated Mobile No.: +91 9740642096 13.12.2024] Email: [email protected] 2. M/s BPB Publications, BPB Online Office at: GF Munish Plaza, 20, Ansari Road, Opp. Fire Brigade Building, Daryaganj, New Delhi Mobile No. 9810025133, 9999999807 Email: [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] .......Defendants CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 1 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11 16:41:56 +0530 Date of Institution : 08.01.2024 Date on which Judgment reserved : 06.02.2026 Date on which judgment pronounced : 11.02.2026 SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court set to adjudicate on myriad issues
flagged on either side, let the Court to spell out laconically the
landscape of the pleadings.
2. This is a suit for Specific Performance of Contract
dated 01.09.2023, Declaration, Permanent Injunction and
Recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- u/s 34 of the Specific Performance
Act, filed by plaintiff against the defendants.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are
that plaintiff is the publisher of educational books. The books are
for schools, colleges and professional learners and are supplied
all over the world. ORANGE AVA is an internal division of the
plaintiff and Mr. Sourabh Dwivedi is duly authorized to sign,
verify and institute the present proceedings for and on behalf of
the plaintiff through Board Resolution.
4. It has been further averred in the plaint that the
defendant No.1, an author expressed his wish to publish books
titled as “Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning” through the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is a
publisher, connived with the defendant No.1 and published the
‘work’ illegally on his website though the ‘work’ was owned by
the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 2 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11 16:42:04 +0530
5. It has been further averred that the present suit is
primarily to address the unauthorized usage of the ‘literary work’
as defined under Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It has
been further averred that the defendant No.1 entered into an
agreement with plaintiff on 01.09.2022, through which he gave
the plaintiff WORLDWIDE COPYRIGHT in English and all
other languages including all types of printed, electronic format,
e-books, IOS Apps, Kindle, Android apps and all other e-
platforms on an exclusive basis for the manuscript/work titled,
“Mastering Classifications Algorithms for Machine Learning”.
6. It has been further averred that through the contract
dated 01.09.2022, it was agreed that the sole and exclusive right
to edit, annotate, introduce, enlarge, print, publish, distribute, sell
and authorize others to distribute and the work in whole or in part
in the form of books, e-book, online, on the web, pamphlets
periodicals print on demand or any other form of printed words
whatsoever will be under the name of the plaintiff and/ or other
trade names as plaintiff may determine at its discretion. It has
been further averred that the defendant No.1 had signed the
contract and informed the plaintiff of writing the book.
7. It has been further averred that it was agreed
between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that if the copyright of
the ‘work’ is believed to be infringed by others and if no other
arrangement is arrived at for the joint action, either party shall
have the right to take any action in such infringements and enjoy
the damages and other reliefs granted by Court of law; that if the
parties proceed jointly, the expenses and recovery whatsoever
shall be shared equally; that if the parties don’t proceed jointly,
either party shall have the right to go ahead with suitable legal
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 3 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:42:13 +0530
action and such party shall bear all expenses thereof and any
recoveries made shall belong to such a party.
8. It has been further averred that it was agreed by the
defendant No.1 that if plaintiff decided not to publish the book,
then the rights will be given back to defendant No.1 but it was
mandatorily required for defendant No.1 to procure the letter in
writing from plaintiff. It has been further averred that the
defendant No.1 agreed not to write the same content for any
other publication without prior written permission from its client
and it was amply clear that the plaintiff only had the first right to
refusal.
9. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is vested
with the exclusive rights of producing and publishing the work as
envisaged by the Copyright Act. It has been further averred that
the defendant No.1 was specifically restrained to deliver any
manuscript, photographs, photostats, maps, etc., already
published or permit any other publishers to publish any material
in any printed form including visual and/ or recording of sound,
based on the material in the ‘Work’ assigned by plaintiff or
which, in the opinion of plaintiff was likely to injure sales of the
work.
10. It has been further averred that the plaintiff invested
in the project as defendant No.1 showed inclination for it and
subsequently plaintiff and defendant No.1 shared all necessary
details and defendant No.1 worked on the manuscript editing and
pre-publishing tasks of the book from September, 2022 till May,
2023. It has been further averred that the defendant No.1 from
time to time prepared the chapters submitted to the plaintiff for
approval and proceeded towards the completion of the
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 4 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 16:42:25 +0530
2026.02.11
manuscript.
11. It has been further averred that the book ‘Mastering
Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning’ was to be
prepared from 18.09.2022 to 01.01.2023. The chapters were
written and the annexures were submitted and the defendant vide
email dated 09.04.2023 had submitted a book proposal to the
plaintiff for approval and the details of the chapter are mentioned
in Para 9 of the plaint.
12. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is the
copyright owner of the work or an exclusive licensee got
registered ‘Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning’ on 13.04.2023 with Raja Ram Mohun Roy National
Agency as ISBN 9789388590792 and E-ISBN 9789388590778
for the book alongwith the name of defendant No.1 as Author. It
has been further averred that the proprietary right of the project
lies with plaintiff and this work was protected by applicable
copyright laws, granting exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute,
display and create derivative works based on it but irresponsible
act of defendant No.1 caused loss to the plaintiff.
13. It has been further averred that the plaintiff had
submitted the work to defendant No.1 for final approval and the
final draft was submitted and accepted on 21.03.2023,
08.04.2023 and 15.05.2023. Meanwhile, defendant No.1 in
connivance with defendant No. 2 with intention to cheat the
plaintiff had shared the entire contents with defendant No.2 for
publication with pre-planned malafide intention to take benefit
from the investment of plaintiff.
14. It has been further averred that once the manuscript
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 5 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:42:34 +0530
was in shape to be published, defendant No.1 decided to move on
with another publisher, defendant No.2 had shared the
manuscript against the terms of contract agreement dated
01.09.2022 signed with the plaintiff. The details of the
investment made by the plaintiff are mentioned in Para 12 of the
plaint.
15. It has been further averred that observing the acts of
defendant No.1, plaintiff had sent an email dated 26.04.2023
informing the defendant No.1 that Plaintiff is available to sell the
product developed by him on all the relevant and major channels
across the world and has a strength of 150 sales personnel for
physical distribution; that it was informed to defendant No.1 that
plaintiff is legally bound to publish any content received during
collaboration period by virtue of the contract that was signed at
the beginning of the project; that the plaintiff had informed the
defendant No.1 that if the defendant No.1 does not abide by the
terms, then the plaintiff shall invoke his legal rights.
16. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has
invested its resources to build something meaningful and taking a
step back caused loss to plaintiff, financially and brand success
wise and the defendant No.1 was advised by the plaintiff to
consider clauses (a), 1, 14, 15 and 16 of the signed contracts and
not to share the content with any other publisher, channel or
distributor as it will stand in conflict to the above stated clauses
and plaintiff also promised defendant No.1 to deliver the best
possible results and a regular update on the market journey of the
product.
17. It has been further averred that despite all the
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 6 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:42:42 +0530
efforts, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants published
the work title ‘Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning’; that the published work is exactly the same as
plaintiff’s copyrighted work, thereby infringing upon plaintiff
exclusive rights; that the similarities between the two works are
evident on BPB Online.com and Amazon.in against the terms of
the agreement dated 01.09.2022 with plaintiff and earning huge
profit on the investment of the plaintiff.
18. It has been further averred that the plaintiff found
that defendant No.1 in connivance with Mr. Manish Jain and
Nrip Jain i.e., owners/ directors of defendant No.2 in a malafide
manner entered into agreement dated 01.09.2022 with plaintiff to
use the manpower and facilities of plaintiff and later published
through defendant No.2 for commercial purposes and caused
financial losses to the plaintiff and nurtured own benefit. It has
been further averred that Mr. Nrip Jain i.e. owner/ Director of
defendant No. 2 mentioned to the plaintiff on whatsapp about the
receipt of manuscript of the work being prepared by the plaintiff
alongwith defendant No.1.
19. It has been further averred that on 26.04.2023,
official of the plaintiff clearly indicated that plaintiff is available
to sell defendant No.1 product on all relevant and major channels
across the world and have a strength of 150 sales personnel for
physical distribution; that plaintiff had legally bound themselves
to publish content received during collaboration period by virtue
of the contract signed at the beginning of the project; that the
plaintiff invested resources to build something meaningful and
taking a step back by defendant No.1 is a loss, financially and
brand success wise. Plaintiff advised defendant no. 1 consider
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 7 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:42:51 +0530
clauses (a), 1, 14, 15 and 16 of signed contract, further not to
share the content with any other publisher, channel or distributor
as it will stand in conflict to the above stated clauses; that the
plaintiff vide email dated 11.05.2023 made formal request to
defendant No.1 for publishing the content finally approved and
ready for publication.
20. It has been further averred that the action of
defendant No.1 as detailed herein above constitute not only
infringing activities but also constant cheating and fraud and as
such there is an urgent need for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from continuing their illegal and malafide
activities; that the defendants had used unauthorized content,
violated contracts and illegally shared the content developed with
the help and investment of the plaintiff with other persons/
publisher i.e. defendant No.2 without any authorization.
21. It is further averred that since the defendant did not
compensate the plaintiff for damages by paying Rs.20,00,000/- in
terms of the Publishing Agreement, the plaintiff had sent a legal
notice dated 24.05.2023 to the defendants through speed post, but
to no avail. Further, the plaintiff had filed an application for
initiating pre-institution mediation on 10.08.2023 before DLSA,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, however, since the defendant
did not participate in mediation proceedings, a Non-Starter
Report dated 28.11.2023 was issued by the authority.
22. Thus, aggrieved by the acts of defendants, plaintiff
has filed the present suit for Specific Performance of Contract
dated 01.09.2023 to declare the plaintiff as exclusive owner of
the copyright “Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 8 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 16:42:59 +0530
2026.02.11
Learning” within the meaning of section 2(o) of the Copyright
Act as per terms of the agreement dated 01.09.2022 in favour of
the plaintiff against the defendants, for permanent injunction to
publish or circulate “Mastering Classification Algorithms for
Machine Learning” and restrain from infringement of the
copyright work by the defendant and to pass a decree of
Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants alongwith interest @ 10% per annum till realization
of the amount.
23. Summons of suit for settlement of issues were
issued to the defendants. Despite service, the defendant No.1
neither appeared nor filed any written statement within the period
stipulated under Commercial Courts Act, hence, opportunity to
file written statement was closed vide order dated 24.07.2024.
Thereafter, vide order 13.12.2024, the defendant No.1 was
proceeded ex-parte.
24. The defendant No.2 has contested the suit by filing a
detailed written statement. However, since the WS was filed
after the expiry of period of 120 days i.e. on 126 th day after the
service of defendant No.2, the WS filed on behalf of the
defendant No.2 has been struck off the record vide order dated
18.09.2024.
25. Accordingly, no replication has been filed on behalf
of the plaintiff. Hence, no issues were framed in the instant case.
(B) Evidence :-
26. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined
the AR of the plaintiff Sh. Sourabh Dwivedi as PW1. He
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 9 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:06 +0530
reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Copy of Board Resolution Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copies of e-mail and agreement both dated Ex.PW-1/2 &
01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3
respectively
3. Copy of e-mail of defendant to him dated Ex.PW-1/4
06.09.2022
4. Copies of e-mails of defendant to him dated Ex.PW-1/5
09.04.2023 and 10.04.2023
5. Copy of registration proof issued by ISBN Ex.PW-1/6
(International Standard Book Number) issued to
the plaintiff dated 13.04.2023
6. Copy of e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/7
and defendant (colly from
pages 42 to 103)
7. Copy of proof of reproduction of my work on Ex.PW-1/8
BPB Online.com and Amazon.in (from pages 104
to 107)
8. Copy of e-mail dated 11.05.2025 Ex.PW-1/9
9. Copy of legal notice dated 24.05.2024 and postal Ex.PW-1/10 &
receipt Ex.PW1/11
10. Copy of detailed worksheet Ex.PW-1/12
(colly pages 100
to 113)
11. Copy of order dated 09.08.2023 and certificate of Ex.PW-1/13
return of plaint (colly)
12. Copy of Non-Starter Report Ex.PW-1/14
13. Certificate under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Ex.PW-1/15
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
27. He was cross-examined at length on behalf of the
defendant No.2. The cross examination of PW1 shall be
discussed in detail at the later part of the judgment.
28. No other witness was examined on behalf of
plaintiff. Therefore, PE was closed.
29. Despite granting opportunity, defendant No.2 has
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 10 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:13 +0530
failed to lead DE and hence, the DE was closed vide order dated
09.07.2025.
30. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Naveen Kumar
Tripathi, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Gyanendra Kumar,
Counsel for defendant No.2. Written submissions have also been
filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendant no.2.
31. During the course of arguments, counsels for
plaintiff and defendant reiterated respective averments made in
the plaint and written statement (which has already been struck
off the record) and also referred to documents filed on behalf of
respective parties as well as evidence adduced on record by the
plaintiff.
32. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that as per
the contract dated 01.09.2020, it was agreed that the sole and
exclusive right to edit, annotate, introduce, enlarge, print,
publish, distribute, sell and authorize others to distribute and the
work in whole or in part in the form of books, e-book, online, on
the web, pamphlets periodicals print on demand or any other
form of printed words whatsoever will be under the name of the
plaintiff and/ or other trade names as plaintiff may determine at
its discretion. It has been further submitted that it was agreed by
the defendant No.1 that if plaintiff decides not to publish the
book, then the rights will be given back to defendant No.1 but it
was mandatorily required for defendant No.1 to procure the letter
in writing from plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the
defendant No.1 has agreed not to write the same content for any
other publication without prior written permission from its client.
It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is vested with the
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 11 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:21 +0530
exclusive rights of producing and publishing the work as
envisaged by the Copyright Act and the defendant No.1 was
specifically restrained to deliver any manuscript, photographs,
photostats, maps, etc., already published or permit any other
publishers to publish any material in any printed form including
visual and/ or recording of sound, based on the material in the
‘Work’ assigned by plaintiff or which in the opinion of plaintiff
was likely to injure sales of the work.
33. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff
invested in the project as defendant No.1 showed inclination for
it and subsequently plaintiff and defendant No.1 shared all
necessary details and defendant No.1 worked on the manuscript
editing and pre-publishing tasks of the book from September,
2022 till May, 2023. It has been further submitted that the
defendant No.1 from time to time prepared the chapters
submitted to the plaintiff for approval and proceeded towards the
completion of the manuscript. It has been further submitted that
the book ‘Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning’ was to be prepared from 18.09.2022 to 01.01.2023 and
the chapters were written and the annexures were submitted and
the defendant vide email dated 09.04.2023 had submitted a book
proposal to the plaintiff for approval and the details of the
chapters are mentioned in Para 7 of the written submission.
34. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is the
copyright owner of the work or an exclusive licensee got
registered ‘Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning’ on 13.04.2023 with Raja Ram Mohun Roy National
Agency as ISBN 9789388590792 and E-ISBN 9789388590778
for the book alongwith the name of defendant No.1 as Author
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 12 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:29 +0530
and the proprietary right of the project lies with plaintiff and this
work was protected by applicable copyright laws, granting
exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display and create
derivative works based on it but irresponsible act of defendant
No.1 caused loss to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted
that the defendant No.1 decided to move on with other publisher
i.e. defendant No.2 and shared the manuscript against the terms
of contract agreement dated 01.09.2022 signed with the plaintiff.
It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has invested
Rs.11,50,000/- for the said project.
35. It has been further submitted that observing the acts
of defendant No.1, plaintiff had sent an email dated 26.04.2023
informing the defendant No.1 that plaintiff is available to sell the
product developed by him on all the relevant and major channels
across the world and has a strength of 150 sales personnel for
physical distribution and it was informed to defendant No.1 that
plaintiff is legally bound to publish any content received during
collaboration period by virtue of the contract that was signed at
the beginning of the project. It has been further submitted that
the plaintiff had informed the defendant No.1 that if the
defendant No.1 does not abide by the terms, then the plaintiff
shall invoke his legal rights.
36. It has been further submitted that despite all the
efforts, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants published
the work title ‘Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning’ and the published work is exactly the same as
plaintiff’s copyrighted work, thereby infringing upon plaintiff
exclusive rights and the similarities between the two works are
evident on BPB Online.com and Amazon.in against the terms of
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 13 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:35 +0530
the agreement dated 01.09.2022 with plaintiff and earning huge
profit on the investment of the plaintiff. It has been further
submitted that on 26.04.2023, official of the plaintiff clearly
indicated that plaintiff is available to sell defendant No.1 product
on all relevant and major channels across the world and have a
strength of 150 sales personnel for physical distribution; that
plaintiff had legally bound themselves to publish content
received during collaboration period by virtue of the contract
signed at the beginning of the project.
37. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff
invested resources to build something meaningful and taking a
step back by defendant No.1 is a loss, financially and brand
success wise and the plaintiff advised defendant no. 1 to consider
clauses (a), 1, 14, 15 and 16 of signed contract. It has been
further submitted that the plaintiff vide email dated 11.05.2023
made formal request to defendant No.1 for publishing the content
finally approved and ready for publication. It has been further
submitted that the said action of defendant No.1 constitutes not
only infringing activities but also constant cheating and fraud and
as such there is an urgent need for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from continuing their illegal and
malafide activities. It has been further submitted that the
defendants had used unauthorized content, violated contracts and
illegally shared the content developed with the help and
investment of the plaintiff with other persons/ publisher i.e.
defendant No.2 without any authorization.
38. It has been further submitted that since the
defendant did not pay the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in
terms of the Publishing Agreement, the plaintiff had sent a legal
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 14 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:43 +0530
notice dated 24.05.2023 to the defendants through speed post but
of no avail. It has been further submitted that the complete
ISBN/E-ISBN registration was submitted and the same got
registered. It has been further submitted that a prior notice was
given to defendant No.2 before and after publication. It has been
further submitted that the electronic evidence relied upon in the
present suit consists of emails exchanged between the plaintiff
and defendant No.1, online publication links and screenshots of
infringing listings on BPB Online and Amazon and the digitally
executed Publishing Agreement.
39. It has been further submitted that the legal
requirement u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of
electronic records is not disputed, however as per Order XI Rule
6(3) of Commercial Courts Act governs the admissibility of
electronic records in commercial disputes. It has been further
submitted that printouts of electronic records are admissible only
if supported by an affidavit confirming that the electronic records
and their contents have not been altered and the information is an
exact replica. It has been further submitted that the omission to
file the certificate was procedural and curable and not deliberate.
It has been further submitted that the electronic evidence is
corroborative of primary contractual and statutory rights. It has
been further submitted that the core rights flow from the written
agreement and statutory copyright and not merely from
electronic records. It has been further submitted that the
evidence may not be discarded at this stage and liberty be granted
to place the Section 65B certificate on record.
40. It has been further submitted that since the copyright
infringement is a statutory tort under Sections 51 and 55 of the
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 15 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:52 +0530
Copyright Act, the book with ISBN/E-ISBN registration by the
plaintiff establishes the proof of publication and ownership and
the registration provides prima facie evidence of ownership and
publication. It has been further submitted that the registered
works are protected under the Copyright Act and thus, the
plaintiff seeks statutory remedies as a Statutory Protection and it
does not claim copyright merely on the basis of ISBN/E-ISBN
registration as it arises automatically upon the creation of any
literary work (as per Sections 13 & 17 of the Copyright Act). It
has been further submitted that the reliance on termination dated
25.04.2023 by defendant No.2 cannot be sustained as accrued
rights and prior investments survive termination. It has been
further submitted that termination cannot legalize a prior breach
and thus, the defendant No.1 had no authority to license
defendant No.2 during the subsistence of plaintiff’s exclusivity
and the defendant No.2’s publication remains ex facie illegal.
41. It has been further submitted that defendant No.2’s
reliance on Deshmukh & Co. v. Avinash Khandekar (2005) case
was misconceived which held that an agreement amounts to a
licence only where exclusivity, worldwide rights, and transfer of
control are absent. It has been further submitted that as the
plaintiff’s rights are exclusive and worldwide, the Author is
contractually restrained from third-party publication and the
plaintiff also bore the commercial risk and investment. It has
been further submitted that as Section 18 explicitly permits
assignment of copyright in future works taking effect upon
creation, defendant No.2’s own publication conclusively proves
that defendant No.2 published without authorization. It has been
further submitted that the plaintiff does not seek specific
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 16 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:43:59 +0530
performance of a determinable contract and the reliefs sought are
statutory injunction and damages under the Copyright Act which
are independent of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and
therefore, the objection regarding jurisdiction to grant declaration
is misconceived.
42. It has been further submitted that the present suit is a
commercial dispute involving exploitation of Copyright,
Publishing and Licensing Rights and Commercial Investment
exceeding the statutory threshold and this Court has jurisdiction
u/s 2(1)(c) & Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which expressly
empowers Civil Courts to grant injunctions, damages and
declarations. It has been further submitted that the declaration
sought is incidental and consequential to the enforcement of
statutory copyright and not a bare declaratory suit u/s 34 of the
Specific Relief Act and therefore, this Court is fully competent to
grant the reliefs, prayed for.
43. It has been further submitted that since after the
termination dated 25.04.2023 the defendant No.1 regaining
printing rights is legally untenable on the grounds that
termination does not divest the plaintiff of his accrued rights and
rights already assigned and acted upon survive termination. It
has been further submitted that the agreement also clearly
restrained defendant No.1 from republishing the same or
substantially similar content or licensing as well as sharing the
manuscript with the third parties without prior permission of the
plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the defendant’s acts
amount to deliberate commercial exploitation of plaintiff’s
copyrighted work, warranting injunction and damages. It has
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 17 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:44:05 +0530
been further submitted that the defendant No.1 breached
exclusivity and defendant No.2 knowingly exploited the breach
for commercial gain. It has been further submitted that the
averments made in plaint have been proved by PW1 and it is
prayed that suit of plaintiff be decreed. Reliance is placed on
behalf of the plaintiff upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as Time Warner Entertainment Co. vs.
RPG Netcom. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 226 case;
(ii) In case titled as Nand Kishore vs. DDA, RFA No.
240/2017, CM No. 19118/2021.
44. Per contra, Counsel for the defendant No.2 has
contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as the plaint discloses no independent cause of action
against defendant No.2 and the dispute, if any, arises solely out of
a contract dated 01.09.2022 between the plaintiff and defendant
No.1 and defendant No.2 was never a party to the said agreement
and therefore, there is no privity of contract as well. It has been
further submitted that the said agreement dated 01.09.2022 has
already been terminated by defendant No.1 on 25.04.2023 before
its completion and publication of the book and this material fact
was suppressed by the plaintiff, however, the same got revealed
during the cross-examination of PW1 who admitted that the said
termination email is not placed on record.
45. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff who is
relying on the agreement dated 01.09.2022 has failed to bring on
record a signed copy of the said agreement and hence failed to
discharge its burden. It has been further submitted that after the
termination of the agreement dated 01.09.2022, the manuscript
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 18 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:44:12 +0530
was independently and lawfully provided by its rightful owner
i.e. defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. It has been further
submitted that it is an admitted fact that plaintiff has neither
placed on record the manuscript/book allegedly published by
them and/or the copy of the book published by defendant No.2
for which he is claiming infringement of copyright. It has been
further submitted that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove
the alleged expenses of Rs.11,50,000/- incurred by it as claimed
in the plaint as admittedly the plaintiff has not placed even a
single document to prove the expenses. It has been further
submitted that the plaintiff has also failed to adduce any evidence
in order to discharge its onus towards its goodwill which was
claimed to the tune of 20,00,000/-. It has been further submitted
that PW1 authorized by Board Resolution dated 15.07.2023 does
not hold the authority to depose or appear as a witness in cross-
examination and accordingly the plaintiff’s alleged attempt to
label legitimate publishing as “fraud” is unsustainable. It has
been further submitted that the plaintiff has used clever drafting
to camouflage the fact that no cause of action has arisen against
defendant No. 2 and hence, the present suit is liable to be
dismissed for want of cause of action.
46. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has
come to this Court with a studied attempt to mislead by
withholding the material fact that defendant No.1/ author, duly
terminated the alleged agreement, if any, dated 01.09.2022 vide
termination notice/ email dated 25.04.2023 Ex.PW-1/D1 which
goes to the root of the maintainability of this suit. It has been
further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff
neither placed on record the said termination email nor disclosed
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 19 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:44:19 +0530
this fact anywhere in his pleading and thus, upon such
termination, plaintiff ceased to have any enforceable right against
any defendants, much less against defendant No.2.
47. It has been further submitted that PW1, upon a
question asked from him during his cross examination, has
testified that it is correct that email at page no.43 (Part of
Ex.PW-1/7) (colly) was sent by the plaintiff in response to email
dated 25.04.2023 sent by defendant No.1, whereby he had
terminated the agreement dated 01.09.2022. It has been further
submitted that PW1 has further testified that he has not placed on
record the copy of e-mail dated 25.04.2023 sent by defendant
No.1 and voluntarily stated that it was not addressed to him. It
has been further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
time and again emphasized that a party who approaches the
Court must do so with candour and good faith. It has been
further submitted that the plaintiff’s case is based on falsehood
and it has no right to approach the Court and should be
summarily thrown out as it is an established fact that a litigant
who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the
pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any
relief, interim or final.
48. It has been further submitted that under Section 17
of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author is the first owner of
copyright unless expressly assigned in writing. It has been
further submitted that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff
was determinable and never culminated into a valid assignment
as the work was not fully delivered and consequently, defendant
No.1 retained all rights and was entitled to grant publishing rights
to defendant No.2. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 20 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:44:25 +0530
is claiming assignment of copyright by way of the agreement
dated 01.09.2022, however in view of section 18 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 the said contention of the plaintiff is not
maintainable as section 18 clearly stipulates that in the case of
assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall
take effect only when the work actually comes into existence. It
has been further submitted that the plaintiff’s reliance on the
agreement dated 01.09.2022 as an assignment of copyright is
misplaced since the alleged work never came into existence or
was delivered to the plaintiff.
49. It has been further submitted that defendant No.2
entered into a separate agreement with defendant No.1 dated
25.04.2023 wherein the author warranted that he was free to deal
with his manuscript and the defendant No.2 relied on such
warranties in good faith and published the work lawfully and
there was no connivance, fraud or infringement. It has been
further submitted that the agreement in question which was
signed by defendant No.1 does not contain any termination
clause and the absence of such a clause in effect meant that the
plaintiff was seeking to bind the defendant No.1 to an
arrangement that could continue indefinitely. It has been further
submitted that mere absence of a termination clause cannot lead
to the inference that the contract is perpetual and on the contrary,
the absence of a termination clause together with the absence of
any stipulation as regards duration thereof would lead to the
conclusion that the contract is terminable at will by either party.
It has been further submitted that the termination of the present
agreement by defendant No.1 is valid in law and cannot be said
to be wrongful.
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 21 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11 16:44:32 +0530
50. It has been further submitted that the nature of the
consideration under the agreement also makes it clear that there
was no assignment of copyright in favour of the plaintiff and it is
an established fact that the agreement stipulates that defendant
No.1 was to receive payment only in the form of royalties instead
of downright payment and it is wholly inconsistent with an
outright assignment of copyright where ownership of copyright is
transferred absolutely in exchange for a lump-sum consideration.
It has been further submitted that the said agreement would be
more of a license to sell and publish. It has been further
submitted that the plaintiff is seeking to compel defendant No.1
not only to assign publishing rights exclusively to the plaintiff
but also to restrain defendant No.1 from assigning such rights to
defendant No.2 and this relief is claimed on the basis of an
alleged agreement which admittedly already stands terminated. It
has been further submitted that such an attempt to force the
author and rightful owner of the subject work to assign
publishing and printing rights solely to the plaintiff is contrary to
law and wholly unsustainable.
51. It has been further submitted that the present suit is
barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in as much
as it is a well-settled proposition that contracts which are in their
nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. It has been
further submitted that the plaintiff under the garb of mandatory
injunction is seeking specific performance of a determinable
contract which is impermissible in law. It has been further
submitted that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are barred in law
and on this ground alone, the present suit is liable to be
dismissed. It has been further submitted that the present suit is a
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 22 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:44:40 +0530
gross abuse of the process of law instituted by the plaintiff
without any legal or factual foundation and therefore, it is prayed
on behalf of defendant No.2 that the present suit may kindly be
dismissed with costs, for being frivolous and not maintainable.
52. Apart from these arguments, in additional written
submissions it has also been submitted that in a determinable
contract, specific performance is barred U/s 14 of the Specific
Relief Act, that damages cannot be awarded without pleading and
proof of actual loss and electronic evidence cannot be admitted
for want of Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act
and that a relief cannot be granted against a particular defendant
if no relief is sought for against it in the pleadings and prayers.
In support of his contention, reliance is placed on behalf of the
defendant upon the following judgments:-
(i) In case titled as Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366;
(ii) In case titled as DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs. DRS
Dilip Roadlines (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors., 2011 SCC
Online 3780;
(iii) In case titled as Dalip Singh vs. State of UP, (2010)
2 SCC 114;
(iv) Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P & Other
and Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. & Ors. Vs.
RPG Netcom Globe & Ors. 2007 SCC OnLine Del
759;
(v) In case titled as Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Annapurna Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 17;
(vi) In case titled as Deshmukh & Co. (Publishers) Pvt.
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 23 /41 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date: Sharma 2026.02.11
Ltd. vs. Avinash Vishnu Khandekar, 2005 SCC
OnLine Bom 566;
(vii) In case titled as New Central Book Agency Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Smt. Madhusri Konar & Ors. (2014) SCC Online
Cal 18353;
(viii) In case titled as Ghh Bumi Mining Services Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 3753;
(ix) In case titled as Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. Vs. The
Stroh Brewery Company, 2000 SCC OnLine Del
481;
(x) In case titled as UOI Vs. Krishna Constructions
Company, (2025) 316 DLT 291;
(xi) In case titled as Sudershan Kumar Bhayana Thr Lrs.
Vs. Vinod Seth Thr. Lrs. 2023 SCC OnLine Del
6097;
(xii) In case titled as Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Emirates Trading
Agency LLC (2017) 13 SCC 243;
(xiii) In case titled as Arjun Panditro Khotkar Vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1.
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
53. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and
have also perused the record as well as the written submissions/
additional written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
54. Issues have not been framed in this case.
55. In the present case, the opportunity to file written
statement on behalf of defendant No.1 was closed vide order
dated 24.07.2024 and the WS filed on behalf of defendant No.2
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 24 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:44:54 +0530
(hereinafter referred to as contesting defendant) was taken off the
record vide order dated 18.09.2024 with the observation that it
was not filed within 120 days from the date of service.
Therefore, in absence of any pleading on behalf of the defendants
denying the contents of the plaint, no issue was framed.
56. Thus, in absence of any WS, there is no issue of
admission of any facts and the cross examination of PW1 was
conducted on behalf of defendant No.2 only in order to prove the
case of the contesting defendant. The legal submissions have
been raised as discussed herein above on behalf of the contesting
defendant.
57. In order to better appreciation of the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties in factual matrix of the present
case, the point of determination arises as under:-
(i) Whether there was any legally enforceable contract
between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 vide
agreement dated 01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3;
(ii) That the agreement Ex.PW1/3 cannot be read into
evidence for want of certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act being legally inadmissible;
(iii) Whether the plaintiff had no copyright qua the book
to be published by the plaintiff in terms of the
agreement Ex.PW1/3 and in consequent thereto,
there was no infringement of any copyright;
(iv) Whether the agreement in question being a contract
which is in its nature determinable;
(v) Whether there was no cause of action against the
contesting defendant;
(vi) Whether the relief prayed in the plaint are specific
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 25 /41
Devendra Digitally signed
by Devendra
Kumar Kumar Sharma
Date: 2026.02.11
Sharma 16:45:01 +0530
and clear capable to be granted/ allowed.
58. Even beyond the scope of arguments raised on
behalf of the parties, one other point of determination would be
whether the alleged agreement is so dependent on the personal
qualification of the defendant No.1 that the Court cannot impose
specific performance of its material terms and if so, what may be
the alternative relief for the plaintiff.
59. It is a cardinal principle of law in a civil suit that the
party who asserts a fact has to prove it by leading cogent
evidence in terms of section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act
which is reproduced as under for the ready reference:-
“Section 101: Burden of proof.–Whoever desires any
Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability
dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts,
must prove that those facts exist. When a person is
bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that
the burden of proof lies on that person.”
60. Further, in order to prove a case, the law is clear that
any particular fact is to be proved by the person who wishes that
particular fact to be in existence and that should be believed by
the Court to be in existence and for ready reference, section 103
of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
“Section 103: The burden of proof as to any particular
fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe
in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the
proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”
61. The burden of proof to make an evidence available
lies on the person who wishes to give evidence and for ready
reference, the relevant provision under section 104 of Indian
Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
“Section 104: The burden of proving any fact necessary
to be proved in order to enable any person to give
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 26 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:45:09 +0530
evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes
to give such evidence.”
62. Lastly, it is also cardinal principle of evidence that a
fact specifically within the knowledge of any person is to be
proved by that person and for ready reference, the relevant
provision under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced
as under:-
“Section 106: When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him.”
63. Further, it is the cardinal principle of law that a civil
suit is to be decided on the principle of probability and in this
regard, reliance may be placed upon para 41 of the judgment in
case titled as Nand Kishore vs. DDA, RFA No. 240/2017, CM
No. 19118/2021, decided on 29.11.2021 which is reproduced as
under for ready reference:-
“13. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the
basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is
filed in the suit before the trial court in the form of plaint
and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the
plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the
form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit for
injunction, this suit is to be decided on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. As held in Raj Kumar
Singh &Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla. reported in 183 (2011)
DLT 418. “A civil case is decided on balance of
probabilities. In the case of Vishnu Putt Sharma Vs.
Dava Sapra. reported in (2009) 13 see 729. the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
“8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a
creditor can maintain a civil and criminal
proceedings at the same time. Both the
proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact
required to be proved for obtaining a decree in
the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in
the criminal proceedings may be overlapping
but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-
a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different.
Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is
bound to prove the commission of the offenceCS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 27 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:45:16 +0530
on the part of the accused beyond any
reasonable doubt, in a civil suit ”
preponderance of probability” would serve the
purpose for obtaining a decree”.
14. Section 101 of the Evidence Act. 1872 defines
“burden of proof” and laid down that the burden of
proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts
the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party
is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The
court has to examine as to whether the person upon
whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his
burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot
proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. In view
of Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof as
to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the
Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by
any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any
particular person. Further, Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in
any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents
agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the
hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their
hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the
time they are deemed to have admitted by their
pleadings. As held in judgment reported as Uttam Chand
Kothari Vs. Gauri Shankar Jalan. AIR 2007 Gau. 20.
admission in the written statement cannot be allowed to
be withdrawn. In view of this legal position of the
Evidence Act, it is clear that it is for the
appellant to prove that he has right, title or interest in the
suit property.
18. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003)
8 SCC 752. As held:-
“Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of
testing of “proved”, ” disproved” and” not
proved” as defined in Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the
valuation of the result drawn by the
applicability of the rule contained in Section 3
of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the
difference. In a suit for possession of property
based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high
degree of probability of his title to ownership,
instead of proving- his title beyond any
reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift
the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails
to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of
proof would stand discharged so as to amount to
proof of the plaintiff’s title. The present caseCS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 28 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:45:23 +0530
being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be
expected to prove his title beyond any
reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability
lending assurance of the availability of title with
him would be enough to shift the onus the
plaintiff’s burden of proof can safely be deemed
to have been discharged. In the opinion of this
Court the plaintiff has succeeded in shifting the
onus on the defendant and therefore, the burden
of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood
discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
64. In the light of above discussed principle of law and
relevant provisions of law, now it is to be seen as to whether the
plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in plaint i.e. of
declaration, permanent injunction and a decree for a sum of
Rs.20 lacs alongwith decree of rendition of accounts alongwith
handing over the profit and pendente lite interest as per RBI
guidelines.
65. In the factual matrix of the present case, the first and
foremost point to be decided is as to whether there was any
legally enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant No.1 and as to whether the agreement relied upon
Ex.PW1/3 is inadmissible in evidence for want of proper
authentication by proving the certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
66. In its pleading and evidence led through PW1, the
reliance has been placed upon the document Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
Ex.PW1/3 is bunch of documents allegedly printout/ downloaded
copy consisting of author information sheet, agreement dated
01.09.2022 (running into 09 pages) including the alleged
signature upon the agreement through web application. Thus, all
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 29 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
these documents are computer printout/ downloaded copy of the
documents which as per law are to be proved by proving the
certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the
correctness of their contents. The documents Ex.PW1/3 is stated
to be the documents which gave rise to the right of the plaintiff
for world wide copyright in English and other languages
including all types of printed, electronic format, e-books, IOS
Apps, kinder, android apps and all other e-platforms on an
exclusive basis for the manuscript/ work titled as “Mastering
Classification Algorithms for Machine Learning”.
67. During the arguments, it has been submitted that the
agreement running from page No.30 to page No.37 of the
paperbook was digitally signed through web app vide documents
titled as sign Now placed at page No.38 of the paperbook.
68. Section 67A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for
the mode of proof of an electronic signature and for ready
reference, same is reproduced as under:-
“Except in the case of a secure digital signature, if the
digital signature of any subscriber is alleged to have
been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such
digital signature is the digital signature of the subscriber
must be proved.”
69. In the present case, there is no pleading that the
agreement Ex.PW1/3 was executed through web Sign. In the
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A of PW1, there is no
mention that as to how this agreement was executed between the
parties and who had been the signatory of said agreement.
During the course of arguments, it was argued that the agreement
was signed through sign Now web application. However, in the
entire testimony of PW1 there is no deposition to the effect that
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 30 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:45:40 +0530
as to who signed on behalf of the plaintiff. Perusal of the
documents reveals that the email ID was used in the name of
Partha Majumbar/ defendant No.1 and by one Vidit on behalf of
the plaintiff but there is no such averment in the pleadings nor
there is any evidence in the testimony of PW1 regarding the web
signature/ electronic signature on behalf of the parties.
70. Further, in the present case admittedly no certificate
u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been proved in order to
authenticate the correctness of electronic documents including
the email dated 01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/2, agreement in question
Ex.PW1/3, copy of email dated 06.01.2022 Ex.PW1/4, copy of
email dated 09.04.2023 and 10.04.2023 Ex.PW1/5, copy of the
registration proof Ex.PW1/6, copy of emails Ex.PW1/7 and other
electronic records in the form of downloaded copy/ emails
Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/12.
71. Though it has been argued that a certificate U/o XI
Rule 6(3) of Commercial Courts Act has been proved as
Ex.PW1/15 and prayer has been made to give opportunity to
prove the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act else to treat
the documents proved as per law in absence of any dispute on
behalf of the defendants and in absence of any rebuttal pleadings.
However, the issue of giving opportunity to prove the certificate
does not arise ipso facto in the hands of the Court and matter is at
the stage of evidence since 06.11.2024 and even this issue has
already been raised at the time of oral final arguments but no step
was taken in order to seek any proper remedy. Therefore, it
appears that this argument has been raised in order to dispel the
adverse statutory presumption arising against the plaintiff for
want of filing of proper certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 31 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:45:47 +0530
Act. The certificate relied upon as Ex.PW1/15 is in no way a
substitute of the statutory requirement of filing certificate u/s 65B
of Indian Evidence Act to prove the authenticity of electronic
evidence as the format and contents of both the certificates are
different one. Further, in the entire certificate Ex.PW1/15, there
is no mention of any details of the computer, date of
downloading the printouts, details of the documents, details of
the website and in absence of any such details, even this
certificate renders no help to the plaintiff even if it is treated to be
substitute of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
72. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Anwar P.V.
Vs. P. K. Bhasheer, Air 2015 SC 180 has delved upon
admissibility of printouts of the documents by observing as
under:-
“13. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record
under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can
be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Section 65B deals with
the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these
provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form,
generated by a computer. It may be noted that Section starts
with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded
or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer
shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions
mentioned under sub-Section (2) are satisfied, without further
proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of
such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as
computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four
conditions under Section 65B(2).”
“14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired
to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an
electronic record, it is permissible provided the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic
record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 32 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:45:54 +0530
electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device
involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions
mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device.”
73. The issue of filing of Certificate U/s 65B of the Act
also came up for consideration before Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MGR
Enterprises & Ors, CRL.L.P. 344/2019 decided on 24 th May,
2019. While referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Anvar P.V. (supra), following observations were
made:-
“17. Further, the petitioner company has placed on record
the customer/ledger statement of account of the respondent
firm maintained by them from 1st January 2011 to 30th
November 2011 in order to show the liability. The same has
been produced in the form of a computer printout which is
a secondary evidence of the electronic record of data
purportedly stored in the computer of the petitioner
company. The petitioner company has not provided a
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to prove
the same and hence the ledger is inadmissible in evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no
objection was raised qua the mode of proof at the time of
exhibiting the copies of the ledger account and the same are
duly exhibited, proved and admissible in evidence. This
contention of learned counsel deserves to be rejected as in
the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act a computer generated document is
inadmissible in evidence.
18. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision
Anvar P.V. (supra) wherein it was held that a computer
generated document would be admissible only when
accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian
Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be
inadmissible.”
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 33 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:01 +0530
74. It was thus concluded:-
“19. Legal position on the point is thus well settled that is if
the document is otherwise inadmissible for want of a
certificate or any other requirement of law, it being
exhibited in the course of trial does not make the document
admissible in law and though an objection as to the mode
of proof can be waived off and should be taken at the first
instance, however the objection as to the admissibility of a
document which goes to the root of the matter can be taken
at any stage. Supreme Court in the decision reported as
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) held:
“20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent
has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of
Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1457] in support of his
submission that a document not admissible in
evidence, though brought on record, has to be
excluded from consideration. We do not have any
dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the
abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case
which calls for the correct position of law being made
precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of
evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not
subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of
documents in evidence may be classified into two
classes: (i) an objection that the document which is
sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence;
and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the
admissibility of the document in evidence but is
directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same
to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely
because a document has been marked as “an exhibit”,
an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and
is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in
appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection
should be taken when the evidence is tendered and
once the document has been admitted in evidence and
marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not
have been admitted in evidence or that the mode
adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot
be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the
marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter
proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is
whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point
of time, would have enabled the party tendering the
evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of
proof as would be regular. The omission to object
becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled
to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act
on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 34 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:07 +0530
about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt
objection does not prejudice the party tendering the
evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court
to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the
question of admissibility then and there; and secondly,
in the event of finding of the court on the mode of
proof sought to be adopted going against the party
tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking
indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode
or method of proof and thereby removing the objection
raised by the opposite party, is available to the party
leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is
fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of
objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case,
failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts
to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof
of a document, the document itself which is sought to
be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first
case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the
objection in a superior court.”
75. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the
very basis and foundation of the case that there was legally
enforceable contract between the parties in the form of Ex.PW1/3
could not be proved by way of evidence and therefore, the very
foundation of the case regarding the entitlement of any of the
relief in favour of the plaintiff could not be proved in the
testimony of PW1 on preponderance of probability.
76. Further, even if it is assumed that vide Ex.PW1/3
there was any legally enforceable contract entered into between
the plaintiff and defendant No.1, it has been proved in the
testimony of PW1 himself that the said contract was terminated
vide e-mail dated 25.04.2023 Ex.PW1/D1. PW1 in his testimony
has admitted that the said email was in the knowledge of PW1
and it was not filed on record and therefore, it can be safely held
in view of his admission that the plaintiff has not approached this
Court with clean hands disclosing all the relevant and material
facts in view of the admission of PW1 that the said email has not
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 35 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:14 +0530
been referred in the plaint or any other document. Thus, once the
agreement has been cancelled, now question arises as to whether
this agreement was liable to be terminated or not.
77. In the present case, the alleged agreement between
the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was for writing a book and there
was some alleged terms and conditions for payment of royalty.
Perusal of Ex.PW1/3 reveals that there was no termination clause
between the parties. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in
case titled as Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Annapurna Films
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 17 relied upon by the
defendant, it can be safely held that the present agreement by
nature was determinable and in this regard, relevant para No. 35
is reproduced as under:-
“There is no provision in the contract for the Artist to
terminate the contract, the right of termination has been
provided only to the plaintiff company. However, the
contract being a commercial contract between the two
private parties for mutual gain and benefit, it cannot be
stated that the Artist could not terminate the aforesaid
contract. Once the parties have lost mutual trust and
confidence in each other, the Court cannot grant an
injunction compelling the Artist to continue with its
contractual obligations with the plaintiff company.
Therefore, the contract being determinable in nature, is
not enforceable in view of Section 14(d) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963.”
78. Further, the writing of book is solely dependent
upon the personal qualification of the defendant No.1 and
therefore, defendant No.1 cannot be forced to specifically
perform the material terms of the contract/ agreement Ex.PW1/3
if the books have not already been written.
79. Therefore, now it is to be seen as to whether the
book in question was already written and published and as to
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 36 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:21 +0530
whether the terms of agreement regarding the future updation of
the book can be ordered to be specifically performed by the
defendant No.1 or not.
80. Though it is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that
the book was already complete and it was about to publish, when
the defendant no.1 has refused to perform his part of contract and
for the purposes of publication even the copyright has already
been obtained by the plaintiff by way of registering it with ISBN
vide document Ex.PW1/6.
81. However, this claim of the plaintiff appears to be
incorrect from the record as well as evidence led so far on behalf
of the plaintiff. In the email dated 20.05.2023, which is part of
Ex.PW1/3 in response to the email dated 24.04.2023 wherein it
was stated by one of the official of the plaintiff company i.e.
Senior Content Development Editor, that she rechecked Chapter
1 and have added a comment with the request to share the front
matter and preface for the book, it was replied that “I was going
to wait until the chapters have been fully finalized – I may still
want to add or changes some of the images/ code files………”.
Thus, this email even itself shows that even by 20.05.2023 the
alleged book was not in existence publication of which according
to the plaintiff has already been completed.
82. Further, in the testimony of PW1, it has come on
record that the complete manuscript was handed over by
defendant no.1 as per the agreement and he has denied the
suggestion that no such manuscript was handed over. However,
when he was confronted regarding the filing of such document
i.e. cover design and the layout of the book which was already
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 37 /41
Devendra Digitally signed
by Devendra
Kumar Kumar Sharma
Date: 2026.02.11
Sharma 16:46:29 +0530
prepared, he replied that he cannot recall filing of any such
document on record. This testimony of PW1 itself shows that he
has avoided the reply of the direct question. As a matter of
record, there is no such document placed on record to show that
the cover design of the book in question was already prepared.
Even as discussed in the abovesaid email, there is discussion of
finalization of cover design and after about 2 years of the said
email, the witness PW1 has deposed against his own record
placed in the judicial file of non-preparation of cover design.
83. Further, PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination
that no hard copies or soft copies of the attachments in the emails
or any document or material prepared by the plaintiff for
advertising and marketing have been placed on record. Thus, this
admission on the part of PW1 itself shows that the book was not
complete by the time alleged contract was terminated on behalf
of the defendant no.1.
84. Further, PW1 has claimed that the plaintiff had sent
the book for printing on all global printing partners but he
himself admitted that no such document has been placed on
record.
85. Further, PW1 has claimed that plaintiff has released
the book in question in the market for sale but he himself
admitted that he has not filed the copy of the said book for which
he is claiming infringement of copyright. Further, it has been
claimed by PW1 that the publication by the defendant no.2 was
later in point of time after the publication by plaintiff but when
he was asked to show any documents, he failed to produce any
such documents about his claim of listing on amazon by the
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 38 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
plaintiff.
86. PW1 has denied that it was only publishing rights
and not the copyright was there with him. However, in this regard
it may be noted that U/s 18 of the Copyright Act, the assignment
of copyright would be only there once the assigned work is
complete. In the present case, the book as discussed herein-
above was never complete for the purposes of publication and
more so the registration with ISBN cannot be told to be a
copyright registration.
87. On the issue of damages, when PW1 was cross-
examined, he has claimed that total Rs.11,50,000/- as expenses
has been shown in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A but he himself has
admitted that he has not filed any document to show the said
expenses incurred by the plaintiff. As per record, there is no
document placed on record regarding any kind of expenses
except email exchanges that too after the termination of the
contract for the publication of the book which appears to be also
an afterthought as once the contract has been terminated
according to the plaintiff himself, there was no occasion for him
to make arrangement for the publication of the book in question.
Further, even as per communication placed on record on behalf
of the plaintiff, the writing of the book was not complete,
therefore, in such circumstances, claim of expenses and that too
without any documentary proof or oral evidence of receiving of
any amount paid/sent for the purposes of publication/preparation
of book, appears to be without any basis. Further, the claim of
damages against the goodwill is there but there is no evidence on
record in what manner and upto what extent the goodwill of the
plaintiff got damaged because of non-publication of the present
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 39 /41
Devendra Digitally signed
by Devendra
Kumar Kumar Sharma
Date: 2026.02.11
Sharma 16:46:43 +0530
book when his claim of listing the selling the book on amazon
was found unsubstantiated.
88. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case on
preponderance of probability. Thus, it can be safely held as
under:-
(i) There was no legally enforceable contract between
the plaintiff and defendant No.1 vide agreement
dated 01.09.2022 Ex.PW1/3;
(ii) That the agreement Ex.PW1/3 cannot be read into
evidence for want of certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act being legally inadmissible;
(iii) That there was no copyright qua the book to be
published by the plaintiff in terms of the agreement
Ex.PW1/3 and in consequent thereto, there was no
infringement of any copyright;
(iv) That the agreement in question being a contract
which was in its nature determinable;
(v) That there was no cause of action against the
contesting defendant;
89. In consequence to the abovesaid findings, it is held
as under that :-
(i) Plaintiff has failed to prove of his exclusive
ownership of the copyright over the book
“Mastering Classification Algorithms for Machine
Learning” within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the
Copyright Act in terms of Agreement dated
01.09.2022, Ex.PW1/3.
(ii) That the plaintiff has not approached this Court with
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 40 /41
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:49 +0530
clean hands and further no ground for permanent
injunction could be made out for publication and
circulation of the abovesaid book against the
defendants.
(iii) That plaintiff has not pleaded specifically as to how
many expenses was incurred by plaintiff and how
much amount is against the infringement of
copyright/goodwill and therefore, plaintiff cannot be
held entitled for any decree of Rs.20 lakhs.
(iv) Since it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for any
kind of declaration or injunction qua the alleged
copyright in favour of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff
cannot be held to be entitled for any kind of
rendition of account or handing over of the profit or
for grant of any other relief.
R E L I E F:-
90. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that
plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit and its suit
is accordingly dismissed.
91. In the circumstances discussed hereinabove, parties
to bear their own costs.
92. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
93. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Dictated and pronounced Kumar
Kumar Sharma
Date:
in the open Court on Sharma 2026.02.11
16:46:57 +0530
11th Day of February, 2026.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM) No. 55/2024 M/s Orange Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Partha Marjumdar Page No. 41 /41