1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.335 OF 1996 1. Ajay Industrial Corporation a partnership firm haviang its office at 4561, Deputy Ganj, Adar Bazar, New Delhi-110006 and factory at Plot No.20/11, Site No.4, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad (U.P.) 2. Devendra Chandra Jain, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing Petitioners/ at D-6, Kalindi Colony, Orig.defts. New Delhi-1100065. No.1 and 2. versus 1. Jain Irrigation Systems Lted. a Public Limited Company in- corporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered Office at Jain Industrial Complex, Jain Pipe Nagar, Nimkhedi, Jalgaon-425001, through its Director Ramesh Bhikamchand Jain, age 48 years, haviang his office at Jain Industrial Complex, Jain Pipe Nagar, Nimkhedi, Jalgaon-425001. 2. Dinesh C, Bhargava, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at B-11, Anand Vihar, New Delhi-110091.(deleted as per Court order dtd.21.4.07) 2 3. Rajesh B. Khachane, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at "Suraj" Girna Water Tank Road, Near Parvati Nagar, Jalgaon. 4. Manish Bhagwantrao Kulkarni, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 61/1, Kusum, Parekh Nagar, behind Telephone Nagar, Jalgaon. 5. Nathu Sukhdeo Koli, Adult Indian Inhabitant, residing at c/of Messrs Prakash Welding Works, Uday Colony, Jalgaon. 6. Malyayagulam Seshari Srinivasan Adult,Indian Inhabitant,residing at c/o L.T.Patil, 28 Venkatesh Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jalgaon. 7. Hifaj Ahmed Babamiya Patel, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 16, Prqabhat Colony, Jalgaon. 8. Shankar Laxman Patil, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing kat c/of D.N.Patil 4, Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon. 9. Sheikh Mohammed Sajid Asnaruddin Adult,Indian Inhabitant,resi- Respondents ding at c/o Rajiv Mistry,Pillo, Resp. No.1 Mohalla Bhadali Road, Asoda, ori,pltff.& Jalgaon. Resp.Nos. 2 to 9 orig. Deft.Nos.3 to 10. 3 Shri S.S.Bora, Advocate, for the applicants. Shri P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel, i/by Shri K.C.Sant, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram: P.R. Borkar J. Date: 06/10/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT 01. This revision applicant is filed against judgment and order passed by the Joint District Judge, Jalgaon, in R.C.S. No.2 of 1993, whereby he framed following preliminary point and answered the same in the affirmative on 10.10.1995; "Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit.?" 2. Briefly stated, present respondent No.1 original plaintiff filed R.C.S No.2 of 1993 alleging that the plaintiff is manufacturer of the micro drip Irrigation System. The knowhow in this behalf is by its very nature and the trade in which it is used is confidential and secret and is not at all available to anyone except the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also manufacture machine like extrudes on which the hardware of micro drip irrigation system is manufactured. The know-how in this behalf is also secret and confidential and is not available to any one except for collaborators, namely, Messrs James 4 Hardie Irrigation (Italy) which had also acquired know-how of a modern technology called "MARTIX" to manufacture a component called "polytube" of micro drip irrigation system. With the help of Martix technology the plaintiff can produce polytube which is very important component of the irrigation system at a speed of 100 feet per minute whereas no other manufacturers can manufacture the said equipment or even reach a production speed of more than 30 feet per minute with their technology. In view of aforesaid collaboration agreement entered into by the plaintiff with said Messrs James Hardie Irrigation (Italy), the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use and are the only users of Matrix technology in India and no one other than the plaintiff has any right to use or exploit the said Matrix Technology. 3. It is further alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint that, by virtue of collaboration agreement with Messrs James Hardie Irrigation, the plaintiff is the sole owner/proprietor of the confidential information, secret know-how, designs, lay-outs of the said manufacturing techniques. The plaintiff is also the exclusive owner of the copyright in the product designs and all the technical drawings, literature and manuals which are the exclusive properties of the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone is owner of and entitled to 5 exploit the said intellectual property, confidential information and secret know-how. 4. After giving further details, it is alleged that a plan was hatched of stealing confidential information, trade secrets in the form of computer floppies, discs, drawings, designs, manuals, technical know-how etc. relating to Matrix technology and other irrigation technology from the plaintiff and thereafter misappropriated the same by manufacturing machines/products based on the said technology and technical know-how of which the plaintiff alone is the owner and has exclusive right over the same. It is thus alleged that the defendants have attempted to steal and use technology of plaintiff's ownership. Finally, plaintiff made following main prayers (a) to (e) other prayers being for interim reliefs; "(a) It be declared that the plaintiffs are the sole and absolute owners of the material described in paragraphs 9,12 and 23 herein and are entitled to exclusive right to use and exploit designs, drawings, manuals,floppy discs etc. (the said materials) as set out in paragraphs 9,12 & 23 herein and that the plaintiffs are alone entitled to possession and custody thereto and to use the same; (b) that it be declared that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the copyright in the Artistic work pertaining to the drawings and designs as set out in the paragraphs 9,12 & 23 herein. 6 (c) that it be declared that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the copyright in the literary works pertaining to the information contained in the manuals and floppy discs as set in the para. 9, 12 & 23 herein. (d) that it be declared that the plaintiffs alone are entitled to and the Defendants or any of them have no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever over or in respect of the said materials described in paragraphs 9, 12 and 23 herein or to use the same in any manner; (e) that the Defendants be ordered and decreed to forthwith hand over and deliver to the plaintiffs the said materials like drawings, designs,s manuals etc. as more particularly set out in Para 9,12 & 23 herein;" 5. Heard Shri S.S.Bora, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.1. 6. Advocate Shri S.S.Bora has taken me through various provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as "The Act"). As per sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the Act, where copyright in any work has been infringed,the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred 7 by law for the infringement of a right. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act, every suit or other civil proceedings arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction. Similarly, as per sub-section (2), the District Court, within whose jurisdiction at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceedings, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, has the jurisdiction. 7. It is argued before me that Section 62(1) of the Act does not include declaration of existence of a copyright in any work. It is only in case of infringement of a copyright where the copyright is either admitted or is duly established that the District Court has jurisdiction to grant various reliefs as mentioned in Section 55 of the Act. Advocate Shri Bora has specifically emphasized that under Section 55 of the Act, declaration is not allowed to be given in respect of copyright. He also argued that so far as copyrights are concerned, there are authorities, such as Registrar or Deputy Registrar or Copyright Board established under Section 10 and 11 of the Act. 8 Section 13 of the Copyright Act defines copyright and Section 17 lays down that the author of the work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. Section 18 speaks of assignment of copyright. Section 19 deals with mode of assignment of copyrights, whereas Section 19-A deals with disputes with respect to assignment of copyright. 8. In this case, present revision applicant has not filed his written statement. It is also informed that even other defendants have not filed their written statements. Immediately after notices, application Exh.65 in R.C.S. No.2 of 1993 was filed for framing preliminary issue about jurisdiction and accordingly the same was framed and decided vide impugned order dated 10.10.1995. So, it is not clear at this stage as to which of the averments in the plaint are admitted and which are disputed. The stage of filing documents and also the stage of framing issues is yet to be reached. It is not known whether the defendants agree that the original author of the copyright is Messrs James Hardie Irrigation (Italy) and whether there was collaboration agreement for assignment or transfer of copyright and whether any document is there to establish the same. Assuming for a moment that declaration could not be given by the District Court, yet prayer clause (e) in the plaint quoted hereinabove, is 9 definitely one in respect of which the District Court has the jurisdiction under Section 62(1) of the Act. At this stage in absence of pleadings of the defendants and documents on record, particularly regarding collaboration agreement, this court keeps the question whether the District Court would be empowered under the Copyright Act to give declarations as such, open. 9. Learned Advocate Shri Bora also argued that it would for the court of Civil Judge,Senior Division to give declaration, but that aspect will also have to be examined. Since it is clear at this stage that prayer clause (e) can be considered by District Court for grant and it would be within its powers under Section 62 (1) of the Act, in my opinion, this court cannot reverse or set aside the finding on preliminary issue recorded by the learned Joint District Judge, Jalgaon, vide order dated 10.10.1995. However, it is made clear that the question as to what reliefs, particularly of declaration, can be given by the District Court is kept open. Now, it is well settled law that even in a complex suit wherein composite prayers are made and if prayers are severable, the court trying that suit can give relief which is within its powers and jurisdiction and may refuse rest of the reliefs. 10 10. With above observations, this civil revision application is disposed of. At this stage Advocate Shri K.C.Sant prays that the District Court may be directed to expedite hearing of the suit which is of 1993. Advocate Shri Bora has no objection to the same. It may be noted that already the matter is pending for last 16 years. In the circumstances, the District Court, Jalgaon is directed to expedite hearing of R.C.S. No.2 of 1993 and decide the same as early as possible. pnd/cra335.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)