Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Author–Publisher Copyright Dispute Involving 'Petits Pas' And 'Allez-y' Series
The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Jyoti Singh, has set aside an arbitral order refusing interim relief in a copyright dispute between authors and a publishing house, holding that the Arbitrator's decision was perverse and failed to apply settled principles governing interim injunctions in intellectual property matters.
The appeal arose from a dispute between the Appellants, Preeti Bhutani and another, and the Respondents, Goyal Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and others, concerning alleged infringement of copyright in literary works. The Appellants are the acknowledged authors of the Petits Pas series, while the Respondents acted as publisher and distributor under agreements executed in 2008.
Background
The grievance of the Appellants arose from the publication of the Allez-y series by the Respondents, which was alleged to be a substantial reproduction of their original works in the Petits Pas series. It was alleged that the Appellants were not shown as authors in the Allez-y books and that several portions from the Petits Pas series were reproduced verbatim without material alteration or authorisation.
The Appellants further asserted that despite continued commercial exploitation of their works, they had not received royalties for several years and that the Respondents continued to copy and publish derivative works without authorisation.
Pending arbitral proceedings, the Appellants sought interim relief before the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an injunction restraining further publication and distribution of the impugned series.
Arbitral Order
By an order dated 7 May 2025, the learned Arbitrator declined to grant interim injunction. While recording prima facie findings that the Appellants were the authors of the Petits Pas series and that portions of the Allez-y series amounted to prima facie verbatim copying, the Arbitrator held that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not in favour of the Appellants. Considerable emphasis was placed on the fact that the Appellants had not claimed royalties since 2008.
Appeal Before the High Court
Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37(2) of the Act. It was contended that the Arbitrator had failed to apply settled principles governing interim injunctions in intellectual property disputes and had ignored material considerations, including the subsistence of copyright and the prima facie case of copying apparent from the record.
Court's Analysis and Decision
The High Court prefaced its analysis by reiterating the limited scope of interference under Section 37, observing that appellate courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral discretion. However, the Court clarified that interference is warranted where the arbitral order is vitiated by perversity, patent illegality, or non-application of mind to relevant factors.
In explaining the concept of perversity, the Court relied on Green Infra Wind Energy Ltd. v. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8273, to hold that a finding is perverse where it is based on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or takes into account irrelevant considerations, such that no reasonable or prudent person would have arrived at such a conclusion.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the Arbitrator's order suffered from perversity. It observed that undue reliance had been placed on the Appellants' failure to demand royalties—an aspect extraneous to the existence and enforceability of copyright—while material considerations such as admitted authorship, subsistence of copyright, and prima facie similarities between the competing works had not been adequately addressed.
The Court further emphasised that in intellectual property matters, particularly cases involving copyright infringement, the settled position of law is that once a prima facie case is established, the grant of injunctive relief ordinarily follows. Reliance was placed on Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8579, to reiterate this principle. The Arbitrator's failure to apply this settled position, according to the Court, rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the arbitral order to the extent it denied interim relief and restrained the Respondents from reproducing, publishing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale the impugned works during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. The Court clarified that the observations made were prima facie in nature and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the disputes in arbitration.
Counsel Appearances
For the Appellants (Preeti Bhutani & Anr.):
Ms. Rajeshwari H., Ms. Garima Joshi, Ms. Swani Chothe and Mr. Sarthak Sabarwal, Advocates.
For Respondents No.1 & 2 (Goyal Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd.):
Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vaishali R. Mittal, Mr. Chirag Mittal, Mr. Shivang Sharma, Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad, Mr. Mushtaq Salim and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates.
For Respondents No.3 & 4 (Authors of Allez-y series):
Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Advocates.
For Respondent No.5 (Marketing Manager, Goyal Publishers):
Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Ms. Vaishali R. Mittal, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Mr. Shivang Sharma and Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Advocates.