Man Mohan Sharma Vs.
Depinder Singh  INSC 2020 (26 November 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6853 ............ of 2008
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.18211 of 2007 Brigadier Man Mohan Sharma, FRGS
(Retd.) ..Appellant Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh ...
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
respondent herein, Lt. General Depinder Singh (Retd.), entered into a
Publication Agreement with Dattatreya Prakashan in September, 1991, for publication
of his book titled "IPKF in Sri Lanka" regarding his experiences
while leading the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka. Pursuant to the said
Agreement, the first edition of the book 2 was published in 1991. In paragraph
2 of the said Agreement, whereby the respondent assigned his exclusive rights
for production and publication of the book to Dattatreya Prakashan, it was
indicated as follows:
AUTHOR(S) hereby assigned to the PUBLISHERS, during the legal terms of
copyright including any renewals thereof, the exclusive rights to produce and
publish the WORK in a volume form in any part of the world in the original
language in which it is written as also to license its translation in any other
languages and publication of any other editions, but the copyright in the WORK
shall remain vested in the AUTHOR(S). The AUTHOR (S) shall not during the
continuance of this Agreement publish or cause to be published in any part of
the world any copy of the WORK or any translation thereof save as herein
business interest in Dattatreya Prakashan was acquired by the appellant who was
carrying on business in the name and style of "Trishul Publications",
which published the second edition of the book in May, 1992. From the materials
on record it appears that, although, initially there 3 was a demand for the
book, such demand decreased and the appellant was, thereafter, reluctant to
invest money in printing further editions of the book. In fact, in response to
the respondent's query regarding publication of a further edition the appellant
on 11.11.1991 wrote to the respondent and expressed his unwillingness to
publish any further edition of the book. He also informed the respondent on
1.6.1993 that the book was a dead stock and it had to be pushed at a lower
price. On 28.10.1997, the appellant again wrote to the respondents stating that
he had conducted a market survey and the demand of the book did not warrant any
reprint. He also advised the respondent to authorize one Bharat Verma to publish
the book. As the said letter is relevant to a decision in this case, the
contents thereof are reproduced here in below:
to our last tele conversation, I have carried out a thorough market survey and
come to the conclusion that there is no large enough demand for the book
warranting a special reprint. I have tried to check up from Lancers but drawn
a 4 blank. Bharat Verma is a good businessman and has perhaps received some
demand from his foreign contacts of which his staff are not aware. He will do a
good job for the Book and you may kindly authorize him to publish. No problem.
I have, however, a suggestion. You may reshape the book - a new book titled
"Failure of IPKF in Srilanka" and draw lessons from it for
respondent, thereafter, approached one Shri Upender Arora, sole proprietor of
Natraj Publishers, with a request to print and publish the book in question.
Thereafter, by a letter dated 28.8.2000 the respondent informed Shri Arora that
he had no objection to Mr. Arora's desire to reprint 1000 copies of the book,
but he also suggested that Shri Arora should obtain the concurrence of the
appellant for doing so.
to the aforesaid suggestion, Shri Arora wrote to the appellant on 31.8.2000
stating that the respondent had granted permission to reprint the book but had
also suggested that concurrence of the appellant should be obtained.
5 Shri Arora,
accordingly, requested the appellant to agree to the proposal so that he could
go ahead with the reprint of the book. In reply to the said letter, the
appellant on 2.9.2000 wrote back to Shri Arora as follows:
PUBLICATIONS 216, Sector-28, Arun Vihar, Noida-201 303.
2 Sep 2000 NATRAJ
PUBLISHERS DEHRADUN THE IPKF IN SRI LANKA Dear Sir, Ref. Your letter of Aug 31,
2. Kindly go ahead
with the reprinting of IPKF in Srilanka.
3. Do send us a
4. We could help you
in the marketing at a suitable discount.
giving his concurrence to Shri Arora to go ahead with the reprinting of the
book, the appellant also wrote to the respondent on 5th September, 2000,
indicating that although he had given his consent to the reprint of 1000 copies
of the Book the reprint would have to have the Trishul name on the jacket as
well as a suitable noting on the copyright page, namely, "First Published
by Trishul Publications, NOIDA". "This edition with special
permission from Trishul Publications".
to the consent given by the appellant, Shri Arora published the book without
acknowledging the fact that such publication was with the leave and concurrence
of Trishul Publications. Claiming that such publication by Shri Arora amounted
to piracy and plagiarism, the appellant sent a detailed report to the Copy Right
Board in terms of Section 19A of the Copy Right Act for necessary
administrative action. The appellant also issued a notice on 10.5.2002 to the
respondent and also to 7 Shri Arora requiring them to desist from distribution
of the "Parallel edition of the book".
In stead of doing so,
the respondent by a letter dated 20.6.2001 terminated the agreement between the
parties, which resulted in the filing of an application by the appellant under
Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, invoking clause 17 of the Agreement which
contains the arbitration agreement in the following terms :
17. If any question,
difference or dispute shall arise between the AUTHOR (S) and the PUBLISHERS
relating to this Agreement or any matter arising therefrom or incidental
thereto, the same shall be submitted to the arbitration of two persons (one to
be named by each party) and in case of the said arbitrators not agreeing, then
it may be submitted to the award of an umpire to be appointed by the
arbitrators in writing before proceeding on the reference. The decision of the
arbitrator or, in the event of their agreeing of the umpire appointed by them,
shall be final and conclusive.
The provisions of the
Indian Arbitration Act 1940 and the Rules thereunder any 8 statutory
modifications thereof shall be deemed to apply to the reference."
application was heard by the designated Judge who came to the conclusion that
the appellant had forfeited all his rights in connection with the book after
having given his consent to Natraj Publishers to go ahead with the reprint of
the same. The learned Judge also held that the appellant was estopped by his
own act and conduct from asserting any right in support of the said book.
According to the learned Judge, there was hardly any dispute which needed
further reference to arbitration.
fact which weighed with the learned Judge was that Shri Arora had filed a suit
which was pending in the Court of District Judge, Dehradun, Uttranchal, and the
issues involved therein were purportedly identical with those raised in the
application for 9 appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Judge also
observed that this fact had not even been mentioned by the appellant in his
application for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.
the basis of his said conclusions, the learned Judge dismissed the application
filed by the appellant.
Division Bench in appeal taking note of the pending civil suit filed by Shri
Arora in which both the appellant as well as the respondent had been made
parties, chose not to interfere with the decision of the learned designated
Judge and dismissed the appeal in order to avoid conflicting decisions.
in support of the appeal, Mr. M.S. Vinaik, and Ms. Anjali Sharma, learned
advocates for the appellant, submitted that both the learned designated Judge
and also the 10 Division Bench had misunderstood the scope of Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in rejecting the appellant's prayer
for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that a civil suit was
pending between Shri Arora, the appellant and the respondent.
It was urged that the
disputes in the pending civil suit and those raised in the application for
appointment of an Arbitrator were not the same, though based on the same set of
was urged that while the pending suit had been filed by Shri Arora, who was not
a party to the Publication Agreement, the prayer for appointment of an Arbitral
Tribunal had been made by the appellant with regard to the disputes that had
arisen between the appellant and the respondent out of the same Agreement and
had little to do with Shri Arora who had merely been granted permission by the
appellant to reprint 1000 copies of the Book.
It was submitted that
the dispute between the 11 appellant and the respondent stemmed from breach of
the conditions of the Agreement, as also the termination thereof, which gave
rise to disputes inter se between the parties and that it was for such purpose
that paragraph 17 had been included in the Publication Agreement. It was
submitted that the learned designated Judge had wrongly dismissed the
appellant's application on the erroneous finding that hardly any dispute
existed between the parties which warranted the appointment of an Arbitral
Tribunal. The decision of the Division Bench was also impugned on the same
Roxna Swami, who appeared for the respondent, on the other hand contended, that
it was clear from the letters addressed by the appellant to the respondent that
he had no intention of publishing any further edition of the book and he
actually advised the respondent to authorize one Bharat Verma to 12 publish
further editions of the book. Instead of entrusting Bharat Verma with the
publication of the further edition of the book as suggested by the appellant,
the respondent gave such right to Shri Arora and Natraj Publications after
terminating the Publication Agreement with the appellant.
learned counsel also submitted that the civil suit filed by Shri Arora covered
all the said issues, and, as had been rightly held by the learned designated
Judge, continuance of the suit as well as the arbitration proceedings
simultaneously, could result in conflicting decisions.
counsel submitted that there was no case for interference with the decisions
both of the designated Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court.
considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having further
perused the materials on record, we find ourselves unable to agree with the
decision of the learned designated Judge as also that of the Division Bench of
the High Court impugned in this appeal.
the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was hardly any
dispute between the parties which merited the appointment of an Arbitral
Tribunal and that a civil suit was pending over the selfsame issues, the
Division Bench relied more on the pendency of the pending civil suit at
Dehradun in rejecting the appellant's prayer for appointment of an Arbitral
Tribunal for settlement of the dispute which according to the appellant had
arisen between the parties.
is no denying the fact that a Publication Agreement had been executed 14
between the appellant and the respondent herein by which the power to produce
and publish the book in question during the period of the Copy Right and its
extension was assigned by the respondent to the appellant.
It is quite true that
the appellant did not think it fit to publish a third edition of the book at
the relevant point of time as there was little demand for the same, but it also
appears from the materials disclosed that he had agreed to reprint of the
second edition to the extent of 1000 copies by Shri Arora. The very fact that
the Publication Agreement was terminated by the respondent is a matter of
dispute between the appellant and the respondent. What would be the commercial
ramifications on account of the publication of the edition by Shri Arora is
also a matter between the appellant and the respondent to a large extent. These
are issues which cannot be decided in the suit filed by Shri Arora, as these
amount to breach of the terms of the 15 Publication Agreement with which Shri
Arora had no concern. The principle of estoppel sought to be invoked by the
learned designated Judge, also appears to have been wrongly applied to the
facts of the case since the learned designated Judge was only required to
examine as to whether any dispute existed between the parties which could be
referred to arbitration. The said question, in our view, should have been left
to the Arbitral Tribunal for a decision.
the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the order of the Division Bench
of the High Court impugned in this appeal or the judgment of the learned
designated Judge, and, accordingly, set aside the same. The matter is remanded
to the learned designated Judge for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in
accordance with the Arbitration Agreement contained in paragraph 17 of the
Publication Agreement arrived at between the respondent and the appellant in
appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.