B. Subhashan Reddy. C.J.
1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge passed in O.A. No. 376 of 2001 in C.S. No. 298 of 2001. Defendant is the appellant having been aggrieved by the interim injunction granted by the learned single Judge. In the suit, three reliefs are sought for by the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, i.e.:
(a) for a declaration that he is the owner of the copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature in Document No. 1 annexed to plaint ;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant, their men, agents etc. from infringing his copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature mentioned in the above annexed document; and
(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant, their men, agents etc. from using or adopting his copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature mentioned in the above annexed document either wholly or in part either by making, representations to any third parties while canvassing for he sale of their lots or in any other form whatsoever.
2. Pending the disposal of the suit, interim injunction has been sought for restraining the appellant, their men etc. from infringing the respondent/plaintiffs copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature as contained in the document annexed to the plaint mentioned supra.
3. After hearing both the parties, by order dated 29.8.2002, the learned single Judge has granted injunction on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is also in his favour for the grant of injunction.
4. There is no stay pending the disposal of the O.S.A. and we are of the considered view that O.S.A. itself being against an interlocutory order, it is better that the O.S.A. itself is disposed of.
5. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that there is no copyright for the respondent as claimed and even if there is one, it ceased to exist in view of Section 15 of the Copyrights Act and that first of all the respondent has no locus to institute a suit and the, question of grant of injunction cannot arise at all. He further submits that the respondent has to first establish his right and question of grant of injunction arises only after the first relief of declaration is granted in the suit and that this is not the stage where the equitable relief of injunction can be granted and that the injunction is fit to be dissolved.
6. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, countering the above arguments, submits that the respondent is the owner of the product invented by him, that it is his innovation, that the appellant was trying to copy it, that the respondent has locus to institute a suit as his intellectual property right is sought to be infringed by the appellant and that not only there is prima facie case to grant an injunction but there is a balance of convenience and that the respondent will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted as, in the event of the suit being decreed, the loss which the respondent sustains, cannot be compensated in terms of money.
7. The entire lis revolves around the locking system to avoid pilferage of petroleum products, which are transported from one place to another. In fact, the dispute is not very much about the locks or the functioning of the locks but it is the solution, which is evolved on which the locks are mounted so as to make them pilferage-free. According to the respondent, the entire system developed by him includes the use of the solution invented by him for which Abloy locks are intended and that the solution invented by him and the usage of locks are inseparable and together they form one composite solution for the problems faced by the oil companies and that the appellant had several opportunities to get a fist-hand information about the solution developed by him, which is original, innovative and research oriented and developed out of his experience, expertise, knowledge and invention. The appellant disputes the same and contends that the invention is not that of the respondent and that the security solution for petroleum arena is offered by ASSA Abloy and the respondent has no intellectual right vested in him in respect of such security solutions in the petroleum arena and as the system said to have been invented by the respondent is already known in the international market and popularised by ASSA Abloy, the respondent cannot claim any copyright in the drawings and literature in that regard.
8. In view of the pleadings and the contentions raised, several questions arise for consideration of which the factum of invention of special solution for locking system is the prime one. Whether, it is Copyrights Act, which is attracted or the Designs Act and if Copyrights Act is attracted, will it subsist even to this date and whether the Patent right claimed by the respondent is not a new innovation but has already been existing etc. are very intricate questions of fact which need to be prayed during trial of the suit. Any finding in that regard may affect either of the parties, as the suit has to be tried by the learned single Judge. Each party claims that the invention, which pertains to a unique locking system and key solution applicable to tanker lorries is his own invention. But one fact which stands out is that the respondent gave the first trial proposal of the solution in question to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation during April 1998, pursuant to which Indian Oil Corporation sought for supply of 564 Nos. of Abloy locks based upon the quotation dated 13.10.1999 and even Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited sought for supply of the said locks by its letter dated 10.1.2000. Compared to the above period, admittedly, the respondent made their first offer to Indian Oil Corporation in January 2001. These factors weighed very much with the learned single Judge and, in our considered view rightly so.
In view of the above, we dismiss this Appeal. However, having regard to the importance of the matter and the urgency involved, we direct the suit to be tried as expeditiously as possible and we hope and trust that the learned single Judge, to whom the matter is entrusted, completes the adjudication in the suit after conducting trial, by the end of February, 2003. The pleadings have been completed and trial is to begin and the first trial date is fixed to December 9, 2002. The parties have to get ready to proceed with the trial. The Registry is directed to take action accordingly to post the Civil Suit before the learned single Judge. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
