Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Refusal Of Interim Relief In ‘Petits Pas–Allez-y’ Copyright Dispute
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Refusal Of Interim Relief In ‘Petits Pas–Allez-y’ Copyright Dispute
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunctive relief in an author publisher copyright dispute concerning the “Petits Pas” and “Allez-y” book series, holding that the arbitral order refusing such relief was perverse and suffered from non-application of settled principles governing interim injunctions in intellectual property disputes.
Justice Jyoti Singh set aside the arbitrator’s refusal to grant interim protection and restrained further publication and exploitation of the impugned works during the pendency of arbitral proceedings.
Factual Background
The dispute arose between Preeti Bhutani and another, acknowledged authors of the Petits Pas series, and Goyal Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and others, who acted as publishers and distributors under agreements executed in 2008.
The Appellants alleged that the Respondents published the Allez-y series by substantially reproducing their original literary works from the Petits Pas series. According to them, large portions were copied verbatim without authorisation, and they were neither credited as authors nor paid royalties despite continued commercial exploitation of their works.
Procedural Background
Pending arbitration, the Appellants sought interim relief before the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to restrain further publication and distribution of the Allez-y series.
By an order dated 7 May 2025, the arbitrator declined to grant an interim injunction. While noting prima facie authorship and similarities between the works, the arbitrator held that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not in favour of the Appellants, relying heavily on the fact that royalties had allegedly not been claimed since 2008. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Delhi High Court under Section 37(2) of the Act.
Issues
1. Whether the arbitral order refusing interim injunction suffered from perversity or patent illegality.
2. Whether the arbitrator failed to apply settled principles governing interim injunctions in copyright disputes.
3. Whether the Appellants had made out a prima facie case warranting interim protection.
Contentions of the Parties
The Appellants contended that the arbitrator ignored crucial factors such as admitted authorship, subsistence of copyright, and prima facie verbatim copying. They argued that reliance on non-demand of royalties was wholly extraneous to the existence and enforceability of copyright.
The Respondents defended the arbitral order, arguing that the arbitrator had exercised discretion judiciously and that appellate interference under Section 37 should be minimal.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court reiterated that although the scope of interference under Section 37 is limited, appellate courts are duty-bound to intervene where an arbitral order is perverse, patently illegal, or reflects non-application of mind.
Relying on Green Infra Wind Energy Ltd. v. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., the Court explained that a finding is perverse if it ignores vital evidence, considers irrelevant factors, or reaches a conclusion that no reasonable person would arrive at.
Applying these principles, the Court found the arbitral order unsustainable. It held that undue emphasis was placed on the Appellants’ alleged failure to demand royalties an irrelevant consideration in determining copyright subsistence and infringement while material aspects such as prima facie copying and admitted authorship were not accorded due weight.
The Court further underscored that in copyright matters, once a prima facie case of infringement is established, injunctive relief ordinarily follows. The arbitrator’s failure to apply this settled position rendered the order legally flawed.
Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the arbitral order insofar as it denied interim relief and restrained the Respondents from reproducing, publishing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale the impugned Allez-y series during the pendency of arbitral proceedings.
The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the disputes in arbitration.
In this case the appellant was represented by Ms. Rajeshwari H., Ms. Garima Joshi, Ms. Swani Chothe and Mr. Sarthak Sabarwal, Advocates.
