Mr. David Davidar vs. Ms. Sivassundari Bose

* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2026
+ CS(COMM) 706/2018
MR. DAVID DAVIDAR .....Plaintiff
versus
MS. SIVASSUNDARI BOSE ....Defendants
+ CS(COMM) 581/2024
SIVASUNDARI BOSE & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
versus
DAVID DAVIDAR ....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in these cases
Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Ms. Medha Singh and Mr.
Manan Mondal, Advocates for Plaintiff in CS(COMM) 706/2018 and
for Defendant in CS(COMM) 581/2024.
Ms. Ritu Singh Mann, Mr. Sohrab Singh Mann and Ms. Shivani,
Advocates for Defendant in CS(COMM) 706/2018 and for Plaintiffs in
CS(COMM) 581/2024.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. CS(COMM) 706/2018 [Originally CS(OS) 1953/2011] has been filed
by Mr. David Davidar against Ms. Sivasundari Bose seeking a permanent
injunction against her from making baseless threats of legal proceedings for
copyright infringement and from making defamatory statements against Mr.
David Davidar and to seek damages from Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 1 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

2. CS(COMM) 581/2024 [Originally CS(OS) 2702/2012] has been filed
by Ms. Sivasundari Bose against Mr. David Davidar seeking a declaration
that the book ‘The House of the Blue Mangoes’ (“ David’s Book ”) authored
by Mr. David Davidar was based on the manuscript of the book ‘Golden Stag’
(“ Sivasundari’s Book ”) authored by Ms. Sivasundari Bose and further
seeking rendition of accounts of profits.
3. Mr. David Davidar sought to amend the Plaint in CS(COMM) 706
/2018 by way of an Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. As the
Summons were yet to be issued in CS(COMM) 706/2018, this Court vide
Order dated 15.09.2011, allowed the amendment to CS(COMM) 706/ 2018
allowing the addition of a Prayer Clause in Paragraph No. 28(ba) to the Plaint.
4. Vide Order dated 03.02.2012 passed in CS(COMM) 706/2018, both
the Suits being CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 were
directed to be consolidated.
5. Vide Order dated 18.03.2014, the following issues have been framed by
this Court:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has infringed the copyright of defendant
in the manuscript of the book ‘the Gold Stag’? OPD in CS(OS)
1953/2011
(ii) Whether the legal notice followed by suit for mandatory
injunction and damages for infringement of copyright, breach
of trust and misappropriation of property filed by the defendant
amounts to groundless threats, defamation and injurious false
suit? OPP in CS(OS) 1953/2011
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 2 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of permanent
injunction against defamation and injurious falsehood against
defendant? OPP in CS(OS) 1953/2011
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rupees 21 lakhs
from the defendant? OPP in CS(OS) 1953/2011
(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD in
CS(OS) 2702/2012
(vi) Whether the book of the defendant ‘The House of Blue
Mangoes’ is based upon the manuscript of plaintiff’s book, the
‘Golden Stag’? OPP in CS(OS) 2702/2012
(vii) Whether the defendant has committed breach of trust and
illegally misappropriated the manuscript submitted by the
plaintiff to M/s. Penguin India for his own use? OPP in
CS(OS) 2702/2012
(viii) Whether the defendant has infringed the copyright of plaintiff
in the manuscript of the book ‘the Gold Stag’? OPP in CS(OS)
2702/2012
(ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory
injunction directing the defendant to publicly acknowledge that
the book of the defendant, ‘The House of Blue Mangoes’ is
based upon the work and manuscript of the plaintiff? OPP in
CS(OS) 2702/2012
(x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of profits earned by the
defendant from the sale of ‘The House of Blue Mangoes’? OPP
in CS(OS) 2702/2012
(xi) Relief
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 3 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MR. DAVID DAVIDAR:
6. The learned Counsel for Mr. David Davidar made the following
submissions:
6.1 Mr. David Davidar is an internationally well-known novelist
and publisher. He has played an important role in developing the
publishing industry in India and in bringing Indian paperback
publishing to global standards, along with being a successful novelist.
Mr. David Davidar set up the business of Penguin Books Publishing
House India (“ Penguin India ”) in 1985, as its first publisher, and
remained with Penguin Books in India until August 2010. In David’s
Book, Mr. David Davidar narrates a fictional story which is
essentially a family saga covering three generations set against the
backdrop of nearly fifty years of South Indian history, i.e. from 1899
to 1947. Some of the fictional characters in the novel are inspired by
Mr. David Davidar’s own family, especially two famous ancestors,
i.e., his paternal great grandfather and his paternal grandfather.
6.2 Mr. David Davidar began to write David’s Book in 1988 as has
been detailed in various newspaper interviews that he gave
subsequently. The first draft of the book was nearly half a million
words long. Over the next decade the book went through three more
drafts and the final draft, approximately 250,000 words long, was
ready in April 2000. The final draft was then edited for Mr. David
Davidar by a famous author, Vikram Seth in mid 2000s, and was
taken for representation by the famous international literary agent
David Godwin in August 2000. On 17.11.2000, Mr. David Davidar
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 4 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

signed an agreement with the first publisher for David’s Book,
Phoenix House, a division of the Orion Publishing Group Ltd.
6.3 David’s Book adopts the well-known and common place
features of numerous such multi-generational family sagas, from the
family tree and map, to the series of generational conflicts attendant
on social change and the often contrasting generational responses to
it, all in the context of the broader history of a country or a region,
essentially, the interplay between social and/or political history and
the individual characters of the novel, over a more or less extended
period.
6.4 Mr. David Davidar never knew of Ms. Sivasundari Bose before
receiving a legal notice dated 24.05.2011 (“ Legal Notice ”). It is
through the Legal Notice that Mr. David Davidar came to know of
Sivasundari’s Book and that Ms. Sivasundari Bose had submitted the
manuscripts of her book to Penguin India. Mr. David Davidar being
the CEO of Penguin India neither saw the manuscript of Sivasundari’s
Book and nor infringed it while writing David’s Book. Mr. David
Davidar was CEO / Publisher of Penguin India. In that capacity, it was
not his duty, nor would it have been possible for him, to see the
thousands of unsolicited manuscripts which were received during his
tenure. All such manuscripts were seen by junior editors.
6.5 Sivasundari’s Book, which was not published until 2006, deals
with the entire twentieth century in South India, and unlike David’s
Book which stops at 1947, Sivasundari’s Book devotes only 45 pages
to the period covered by David’s Book. Upon comparison, Mr. David
Davidar found absolutely no similarity between the two books except
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 5 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

for ones that are attributable to public-domain historical content. The
two books are wholly dissimilar in text, style, plot structure, events
described, characterization; there is no similarity between the two in
this or any other literary feature. There is no question of copyright in
any historical events either in general or in relation to any particular
region, nor can there be any copyright in a whole genre of fiction such
as the commonplace genre of multi-generational family sagas.
Sivasundari’s Book is even titled after the great poet Rabindranath
Tagore’s poem: ‘I Hunt for the Golden Stag’. Sivasundari’s Book is
inspired by this poem and that is the basis of the entire theme of
Sivasundari’s Book, and this fact is also stated by Ms. Sivasundari
Bose in Sivasundari’s Book. The first title of Sivasundari’s Book, as
stated in the Legal Notice, was itself ‘I Hunt for the Golden Stag’.
6.6 Ms. Sivasundari Bose never met Mr. David Davidar personally.
Her averment was that she had met Ms. Sayoni Basu, then a Junior
Editor at Penguin India. Mr. David Davidar therefore traced out and
contacted Ms. Sayoni Basu who, like Mr. David Davidar himself, is
no longer with Penguin India. Ms. Sayoni Basu has filed an affidavit
in which Ms. Sayoni Basu confirms that Ms. Sivasundari’s manuscript
was never submitted to Mr. David Davidar. Only a few sample pages
of Sivasundari’s Book were sent to Penguin India in 1996 and not the
whole manuscript as has also been admitted by Ms. Sayoni Basu in
her cross-examination. Thus, Mr. David Davidar could not have
copied the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book given to Penguin India
in 1996.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 6 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

6.7 Ms. Sivasundari Bose has claimed that on 24.01.2000, she met
Ms. Sayoni Basu and gave her the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book
in a floppy disc. Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s only basis regarding meeting
Ms. Sayoni Basu was a visiting card that could have been easily
obtained from one of the numerous book fairs and seminars that
publishers and aspiring authors attend. In order to prove copyright
infringement Ms. Sivasundari Bose would have to prove that Mr.
David Davidar had access to the manuscript for Ms. Sivasundari’s
Book as has been held in the judgment of Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj
Films , (2014) 59 PTC 292. Without access to Ms. Sivasundari’s
Book, the degree of proof required to establish an allegation of
copying is much higher on Ms. Sivasundari Bose as has been held in
the judgment of Shivani Tibrewala v. Rajat Mukerjee and Ors. ,
(2020) 81 PTC 329.
6.8 The Supreme Court in RG Anand v. M/s Delux Films and
Others , (1978) 4 SCC 118, held that there can be no copyright in an
idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts. It
has to be determined whether similarities are on fundamental or
substantial aspects of mode of expression. There are no similarities
between David’s Book and Sivasundari’s Book for the purpose of
copyright infringement, which has been wrongly alleged by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose. Sivasundari’s Book deals with 20th century South
India and only 46 pages out of the 299 pages deal with the same
period as that of David’s Book. The prima facie differences between
the two books are as below, as per the comparison of the two books:
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 7 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

6.9 Ms. Sivasundari Bose, in her letter dated 06.09.2003 to Ms.
Chitra Banerji Divakaruni has admitted that Mr. David Davidar in
David’s Book has given different names to the characters, placed them
in different surroundings, presented British India in a more elaborate
manner and additionally added several pages of his own making.
Further, she has claimed that there is a big chunk left of Sivasundari’s
Book, the post-independence period, which Mr. David Davidar might
have reserved for a sequel. This also shows that the two works are
absolutely dissimilar. Mr. David Davidar is a more successful writer
than Ms. Sivasundari Bose and David’s Book is commercially more
successful than Sivasundari’s Book.
6.10 It is always open to any person to choose an idea as subject
matter and develop it in their own manner and give expression to the
idea by treating it differently from others; where two writers write on
the same subject, similarities are bound to occur, but the similarities
or coincidences cannot by themselves lead to an allegation of
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 8 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

plagiarism. Minor or coincidental commonalities, or random
similarities scattered throughout the works, do not equate to copyright
infringement. The coincidence of certain elements, especially if they
be of the scene a’ faire variety, will not constitute copyright
infringement. Stock scenes or scene a’ faire, situations which naturally
flow from a basic premise, are unprotectable as has been held in Wild
v. NBC Universal , 513 F. App’x 640 (2013). Even in the present case,
Mr. David’s Book is different in expression, treatment, context etc. in
comparison to Sivasundari’s Book.
6.11 Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s case that some phrases have been
copied by Mr. David Davidar in David’s Book, is baseless. The
common names used in both the books are names common in the state
of Tamil Nadu.
6.12 The Legal Notice has been issued to Mr. David Davidar by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose with the ulterior motive of causing harm by way of
revenge for rejection of her manuscript by Penguin India of which Mr.
David Davidar was the then CEO. Ms. Sivasundari Bose intended to
benefit monetarily by selling more copies of her book by drawing
public and media attention to herself and her unsuccessful book by
attacking and maligning Mr. David Davidar, who is a well-known
author and publisher. As evident from the above, Mr. David Davidar is
a renowned writer and David’s Book is far more successful as a
commercial venture and a far greater literary achievement. On the
other hand, Sivasundari’s Book was rejected a total of 10 times by 8
publishing houses. Ms. Sivasundari Bose in her letter dated
06.09.2003 to Ms. Chitra Banerji Divakaruni has referred to Mr.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 9 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

David Davidar as ‘influential and loaded’. This clearly shows that Ms.
Sivasundari Bose has looked at Mr. David Davidar as a source of
compensation and as a means of making a substantial amount of
money with the ulterior motive to cause harm by way of revenge for
rejection.
6.13 Malice is also borne out of the fact that Ms. Sivasundari Bose
has also acted with defamatory intent to bring down Mr. David
Davidar’s public image and reputation in the eyes of the literary world
and the general public, by making utterly false statements publicly
that Mr. David Davidar had copied Sivasundari’s Book, maliciously
and without any cause. Ms. Sivasundari Bose even defamed Mr.
David Davidar in front of Chitra Banerji Divakaruni, who is an author
and a public figure, as well as Ms. Beulah Shekhar, National General
Secretary of YWCA. Since Ms. Sivasundari Bose has made false
statements to third parties maligning the reputation of Mr. David
Davidar, Ms. Sivasundari Bose is liable for defamation.
6.14 A charge of plagiarism can destroy the credibility, honour and
reputation of a writer/publisher in and outside the literary world and it
is even worse when the same is false and thus defamatory. A good
name is worth more than good riches as has been held in the judgment
of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy , AIR 2006 Delhi 300. It
was held in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt
Benckiser , 207 (2014) DLT 713 (DB), that generally damages are “at
large” in case of defamation.
6.15 In the present case, Ms. Sivasundari Bose has intentionally
defamed Mr. David Davidar publicly by accusing him of plagiarism
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 10 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

and, thus, affecting his morality, honour, and professional integrity
and reputation. It has been held in the judgment of DP Choudhary &
Ors. v. Kumari Manjulata , AIR 1997 Raj 170, that if a person has in
fact injured another’s reputation, they are liable even if they did not
intend to do so and the words are actionable if false and defamatory,
even if published accidentally or inadvertently. In the instant case, the
defamatory statements are intentional. The intention of Ms.
Sivasundari Bose appears to be to take undue advantage of Mr. David
Davidar’s position as a means of making a substantial amount of
money as is also evident from the fact that she referred to him as
‘Loaded’.
6.16 Mr. David Davidar is entitled to compensatory damages for the
damage to his reputation, mental agony and suffering, hurt and
humiliation, many years in litigation and the fact that there can be
nothing worse for an author than a false charge of plagiarism.
Moreover, the fact that Ms. Sivasundari Bose has repeatedly defamed
the author and continued to do so even during the pendency of the
dispute makes Mr. David Davidar entitled to exemplary damages. It
has been held in Hindustan Unilever (supra) that where the
disparaging content was shown repeatedly, and with an aim to
denigrate the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, punitive and
exemplary damages are warranted.
6.17 The Suit, CS(COMM) 581/2024, filed by Ms. Sivasundari
Bose, is barred by limitation. David’s Book was published in 2002
and admittedly Ms. Sivasundari Bose became aware of the same in
August 2003. Despite the same, the Legal Notice was sent in 2011
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 11 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

and the Suit CS(COMM) 581/2024 was filed in 2012. No explanation
or justification has been given for such delay. In fact, even in her
cross-examination, Ms. Sivasundari Bose could not explain such
massive delay and acquiescence. Further, the said action is barred by
limitation under Clause 88 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act,
1963 (“ Limitation Act ”), wherein an action for compensation for
infringing copyright ought to have been filed within 3 years of the
date of infringement. Even if the limitation period is computed from
the date of knowledge, which is August, 2003, and not the date of
publication of Mr. David’s Book in the year 2002, the limitation
period expired in the year 2006.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE:
7. The learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose made the following
submissions:
7.1 In the year 1987, Ms. Sivasundari Bose, inspired by the lives of
some of her ancestors, decided to write a book, spanning over 5
generations, choosing South Tamil Nadu, her birth place, where she
had grown up, as the backdrop. This book encompassed a period of 50
years before and after independence. The character ‘Mayan’ in
Sivasundari’s Book was based on her grandfather’s grandfather of the
same name and ‘Nagalingam’ in her book is also an ancestor. Ms.
Sivasundari Bose wished to share with the readers the intrinsic flavour
of the region, focusing upon both, its strengths and weaknesses. Ms.
Sivasundari Bose started gathering material for her proposed book in
the year 1987 and spent almost 4 years carrying out extensive
research and collecting reference material. During said period
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 12 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

between the years 1987 to 1990, Ms. Sivasundari Bose also made
notes on loose papers in her diaries for the purpose of use in the
manuscript.
7.2 In the year 1991, the first draft of Sivasundari’s Book was ready
and Ms. Sivasundari Bose also wrote the epilogue for the book.
During the period 1992 to 1995, Ms. Sivasundari Bose approached
Tamil movie makers, Mr. Kamal Hassan and Ms. Suhasini
Maniratnam, hoping that the said movie makers may perhaps be
interested in using Sivasundari’s Book for a Tamil movie. However,
no positive response was received from the said persons. Thereafter,
Ms. Sivasundari Bose approached several publishers including
Penguin India. Penguin India, vide their letter dated 03.10.1996
signed by one Mr. Krishan Chopra, returned the sample pages of
Sivasundari’s Book stating that they had a very limited slot for fiction.
On 24.01.2000, Ms. Sivasundari Bose approached Penguin India once
again for publication of Sivasundari’s Book with a manuscript of the
book in a floppy disk. However, neither an acceptance nor rejection of
the manuscript submitted to Penguin India on 24.01.2000 was
received by Ms. Sivasundari Bose. On 24.07.2003, Ms. Sivasundari
Bose, once again sent a manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book to Penguin
India. However, Penguin India was not interested in publishing
Sivasundari’s Book.
7.3 Sometime in early August 2003, Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s son,
who was visiting India, came across David’s Book. Ms. Sivasundari
Bose’s son pointed out to Ms. Sivasundari Bose, the similarity in the
story outline on the paperback of David’s Book to the story of
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 13 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Sivasundari’s Book. The map and the family tree in the beginning of
David’s Book had also clearly been lifted from the manuscript for
Sivasundari’s Book. While Mr. David Davidar had changed the names
of the characters, the similarities in the story were too striking to be a
matter of coincidence. The similarities in David’s Book and
Sivasundari’s Book are as under:

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 14 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 15 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 16 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 17 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 18 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 19 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 20 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 21 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 22 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 23 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 24 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 25 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 26 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

7.4 The fact that Ms. Sivasundari Bose had submitted the
manuscript of her work to Penguin India when Mr. David Davidar
was the head at Penguin India and, as such, had free access to Ms.
Sivasundari Bose’s manuscript, left Ms. Sivasundari Bose in no doubt
whatsoever that Mr. David Davidar had picked up her manuscript in
2000 and had turned and twisted the story around to write David’s
Book, which was published in 2002. Ms. Sivasundari Bose read
David’s Book and discovered that the setting as to region and time as
well as the central theme of David’s Book was the same as that of
Sivasundari’s Book. Practically each of the main characters in
Sivasundari’s Book has a corresponding character in David’s Book,
although David Davidar has adopted Christian names for his
characters. The similarity in the role/nature of some of the main
characters in each of the two books is too striking to be a mere
coincidence.
7.5 Mr. David Davidar has submitted that David’s Book was
written being inspired by two of his family members, i.e., his paternal
grandfather and paternal great grandfather. However, in the author’s
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 27 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

note appended at the end of Mr. David’s Book, he has claimed that his
book is completely fictional and has not been inspired by anyone in
his family. Further, Mr. David Davidar had submitted that he had
started writing David’s Book in the 1980s, however, in the interviews
given by Mr. David Davidar, he had stated that he wrote David’s Book
in one year and in another interview stated that he had written David’s
Book in two and a half years. Therefore, Mr. David Davidar has made
contrary statements every time that he was asked about the time it
took to write David’s Book.
7.6 The number of similarities in David’s Book and Sivasundari’s
Book would leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of an average
reader that the earlier written work was available with the author of
the subsequent work while writing his book. Mr. David Davidar does
not deny the existence of the listed similarities but makes a futile
attempt to explain these as an inevitable consequence of the two
books of the genre being written regarding the same region in the
same social and historical milieu.
7.7 Mr. David Davidar does not claim or assert that Ms.
Sivasundari Bose has copied his work and only seeks a declaration
that David’s Book does not infringe any right of Ms. Sivasundari
Bose, while Ms. Sivasundari Bose has averred and established that her
manuscript was given to Penguin India of which Mr. David Davidar
was then the CEO, while Mr. David Davidar has failed to establish
that David’s Book was conceived or written prior to January 2000.
7.8 In interviews given by Mr. David Davidar in 2000 and 2002 he
confesses that David’s Book was written in the last one/two and a half
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 28 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

years, which establishes that David’s Book was written after the
submission of the manuscript of Ms. Sivasundari’s Book and after it
arrived on Mr. David Davidar’s desk, handed over to him by Ms.
Sayoni Basu, a copy editor, in his office, who, knowing that Mr.
David Davidar was a Nadar from south Tamil Nadu, would be
interested in the work. Ms. SayoniBasu, a lowly copy editor, is
generously rewarded with an acknowledgment in David’s Book for
this contribution.
7.9 The fact that Sivasundari’s Book predates David’s Book is
established beyond doubt. The resemblance in practically all the
central characters in the two books cannot be a mere coincidence. For
two persons who have never met, to, more or less at the same time,
conceive the same plot, use the same theme, social and political
issues, traditions, concepts, names, and write books with central
characters closely resembling the corresponding characters in each
other’s books, giving near-identical descriptions to several scenes,
using an eerie number of common issues, and have the same thought
process while writing the books, so much so that identical incidents
happen in the same month cannot be a mere co-incidence. Some of
the superfluous details, the frame of the two books is near identical.
7.10 There is no quarrel with the proposition that there is no
copyright in an idea or a theme. However, when the idea takes a
material form and is expressed in a literary work, itis no longer
available to be usurped by infringers.Ms. Sivasundari Bose was
undeniably the owner of the copyright in her original literary work
which she handed over in the form of a manuscript to Ms. Basu. No
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 29 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

one can claim exclusive rights to common historical or legendary
facts but when historical and legendary facts, common names,
historical figures, subjects etc., are woven together in a unique
manner by an author, conceptualized and articulated in an inventive
form creating an original work, proprietary rights are undeniably
created.
7.11 Sivasundari’s Book was unpublished and the combination,
scheme and arrangement of the region, period, characters, incidents,
issues, traditions, concepts etc., were unique and not in the public
domain. It has been held in the judgment of Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and
Another , 2010 (7) Mh.L.J. 338, that if the totality of the impression is
that the film is by and large, a copy of the original play, infringement
is proved.
7.12 Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted her work in trust to Penguin
India which was headed by Mr. David Davidar. The work could be
either rejected and returned to Ms. Sivasundari Bose or it could be
published in the name of Ms. Sivasundari Bose. It was not open to
anyone at Penguin India, or to Mr. David Davidar on whose desk the
manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book was placed by Ms. Basu to
misappropriate it for their own use.
7.13 Significantly in 1996, Ms. Sivasundari Bose received a letter of
rejection dated 03.10.1996, but did not receive a letter of rejection
subsequent to the submission of manuscript on 24.01.2000.
7.14 In 2000, it was not rejected and in fact ended up on Mr. David
Davidar’s desk, and described by Mr. David Davidar himself as
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 30 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

interesting manuscript by an unknown novelist in his email to his
agent, Mr. Godwin. It is evident that once Mr. David Davidar read the
manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book, it struck him that he too could
write about his grandparents hailing from the same region, with the
same Nadar background. He immediately seized the manuscript, and
came up with David’s Book. He was lifting the theme, the plot, the
characters, specific incidents, scenes, phrases, expressions, and even
minute though insignificant details such as leeches and tadpoles,
lantana and touch-me-nots, which had no bearing on the story.
7.15 Mr. David Davidar, using his editorial skills, worked upon the
manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book and produced David’s Book. Mr.
David Davidar offers no explanation as to why he postponed writing a
generational saga for more than a decade when it was on his mind as
early as the 1980s. Surprisingly, Mr. David Davidar waited for years
but he spurred into action as soon as a ready-made manuscript is
handed over to him and sets about writing at a furious pace, a book set
in the same region, in the same period of time, revolving around the
same class of people beset by the same problems of class division.
David’s Book is a crafty manipulation of material in hand to produce
a tome. Characterization is the essence of literature.
7.16 Mr. David Davidar has committed gross injustice to Ms.
Sivasundari Bose by defrauding her by misusing her manuscript and
copying its theme, presentation, structure and characterization, using
the same social and political issues, to produce his own book, and has
debased his position as a publisher by appropriating for his own use,
the manuscript entrusted to him by Ms. Sivasundari Bose, thus
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 31 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

committing breach of trust/confidence, reliance in this regard has been
placed on the judgments in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial
Communications Pvt. Ltd. , 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 695 and Kapil Chopra
Vs. Kunal Deshmukh and Others , 2013 (I) Mh.L.J. 343.
7.17 Ms. Sivasundari Bose sent the Legal Notice to Mr. David
Davidar claiming that David’s Book had been copied from the
manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book and the acts of Mr. David Davidar
amounted to copyright infringement. Mr. David Davidar sent a reply
to the Legal Notice dated 01.06.2011 (“ Reply to the Legal Notice ”)
wherein Mr. David Davidar denied the claims of Ms. Sivasundari
Bose and stated that he will be proceeding with a Suit for defamation
if the baseless allegations against Mr. David Davidar continued. On
28.07.2011, Ms. Sivasundari Bose sent Mr. David Davidar a response
to the Reply to the Legal Notice stating that she will be filing a Suit
before the Court for copyright infringement.
7.18 Based on Legal Notice and the Response to the Reply to the
Legal Notice dated 28.07.2011 sent by Ms. Sivasundari Bose alleging
that Mr. David Davidar had infringed her copyright, Mr. David
Davidar filed CS(COMM) 706/2018 on 06.08.2011, seeking a
declaration, permanent injunction restraining groundless threats,
defamation and malicious / injurious falsehood, damages etc.,
invoking Section 60 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“ Copyright
Act ”). The proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act provides that
Section 60 of the Copyright Act shall not apply if the person making
such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action
for infringement of the copyright claimed by him. Unaware that Mr.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 32 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

David Davidar had filed CS(COMM) 706/2018, Ms. Sivasundari Bose
filed a civil suit, being CS(COMM) 581/2024, before the District
Court, Saket, Delhi, seeking direction against Mr. David Davidar for
public acknowledgement that David’s Book is breach of trust, and
compensation for misappropriating Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s property.
7.19 Prayer (ba) was sought to be added by Mr. David Davidar to
CS(COMM) 706/2018 subsequent to receipt of CS(COMM) 581/2024
proposed suit, by way of an amendment application filed on
30.08.2011, without disclosing to this Court that Ms. Sivasundari
Bose had already filed a suit for infringement against Mr. David
Davidar. The amendment sought by the Plaintiff, citing inadvertence
as the ground therefore, was allowed on 15.09.2011. In view of the
fact that Ms. Sivasundari Bose already filed the Suit, CS(COMM)
581/2024 as contemplated under the proviso to Section 60 of the
Copyright Act, the prayers (a), (b) and (ba) in the amended suit,
CS(COMM) 706/2018, had become infructuous as on the date of issue
of notice of CS(COMM) 706/2018 to Ms. Sivasundari Bose. Upon a
reading of Paragraph No. 25 of CS(COMM) 706/2018 which details
the cause of action, the Suit CS(COMM) 706/2018 is now
infructuous.
7.20 After discovering that Sivasundari’s Book has been
misappropriated by Mr. David Davidar, Ms. Sivasundari Bose sought
the help and advice of close friends and lawyers in pursuit of legal
remedies. This cannot be said to constitute defamation. Even though
Mr. David Davidar has failed to seriously allege or prove defamation,
Ms. Sivasundari Bose was well within her rights to protect her interest
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 33 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

and seek the advice of those she trusted and those who were qualified
to help. Her conduct is squarely covered by the exceptions to the
definition of defamation, particularly, Ninth Exception to Section 499
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, viz., imputation made in good faith
by person for protection of his or other’s interests.
7.21 The intent of Ms. Sivasundari Bose, at all times, was to protect
her interest and not defame Mr. David Davidar. It is patent that Ms.
Nilanjana Roy, whose blurb/quote praise finds top place on the back
of David’s Book, at the behest of Mr. David Davidar, wrote a scathing
piece titled ‘When it’s Not Stealing in the Business Standard’ in July
2012, or thereabouts, even while the Suits were pending, defending
Mr. David Davidar, returning a verdict against Ms. Sivasundari Bose
and recommending that false accusations of plagiarism should be
made a crime.
7.22 Mr. David Davidar has claimed damages of an arbitrary amount
of ₹21,00,000.00 without elaborating on the basis of either the claim
or its computation. No instance of defamation is averred in the Plaint
for CS(COMM) 706/2018, the plaint fails to disclose as to how mere
sending of legal notices by Ms. Sivasundari Bose to Mr. David
Davidar caused defamation and resulted in loss of reputation. The
Plaint for CS(COMM) 706/2018 further fails to record any averment
as to the particulars, nature or any other detail in respect of the alleged
damages sustained by Mr. David Davidar.
7.23 The Suit CS(COMM) 581/2024, filed by Ms. Sivasundari Bose
is within limitation as the present case falls within the exception of
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 34 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act. Section 15(5) of the Limitation
Act provides as under:
“ 15.Exclusion of time in certain other cases
(5) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time
during which the defendant has been absent from India and
from the territories outside India under the administration
of the Central Government, shall be excluded. ”
7.24 Mr. David Davidar did not produce his passport but filed an
affidavit dated 04.04.2013 stating that he had been living abroad from
03.01.2004 to 31.12.2010. Mr. David Davidar also stated that he
visited India once a year but neither disclosed the dates of his alleged
visits to India nor did he produce any documentary evidence of the
same. Thus, whether January / March 2002, the date of publication of
David’s Book as disclosed by Mr. David Davidar, or the date of Ms.
Sivasundari Bose’s knowledge of the infringement by Mr. David
Davidar in August 2003, is taken to be the date of accrual of cause of
action, after excluding the period 03.01.2004 to 31.12.2010 when Mr.
David Davidar was admittedly absent from India. Therefore, the Suit,
CS(COMM) 581/2024 filed on 29.08.2011, is well within the
limitation period of three years. The period for which a defendant is
outside India can be excluded from the period of limitation, as has
been held by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Satya Jain
(Dead) Through LRS. and Others v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead)
Through LRS. and Others , (2013) 8 SCC 131 and in PC.K. Muthia
Chettiar and Others v. V.E.S. Shanmugham Chettair and Another ,
(1969) 1 SCR 444.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 35 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

7.25 Section 55 of the Copyright Act, provides that the owner of a
copyright shall be entitled to injunction, damages and accounts.
Unfortunately, by the time Ms. Sivasundari Bose became aware of the
fact that her story had been stolen by Mr. David Davidar, David’s
Book was already published and widely sold. Her efforts to file a Suit
in 2003 did not fructify. By the time she was able to file the suit, the
relief of injunction had become meaningless and the only manner in
which Ms. Sivasundari Bose can be compensated for the wrong
suffered by her is by being awarded damages of a quantum that would
hurt Mr. David Davidar. It was held in the judgment of Dabur India
Ltd. v. K.R. Industries , 2008 SCC OnLine SC, that a person found
guilty of copyright infringement will be liable to pay damages.
7.26 When Ms. Sivasundari Bose saw David’s Book with a Map of
Tamil Nadu and the family tree, she felt it was copied from
Sivasundari’s Book and after reading the first few pages, the horror of
what had happened dawned upon her. This was her book, brutally
twisted to give it a new face and appearance, and published under the
name of none other than the CEO of Penguin India. In the present
case, Mr. David Davidar is liable not only for infringing Ms.
Sivasundari Bose’s copyright but also for committing breach of
confidence. Ms. Sivasundari Bose deserves to be compensated for
having been wronged by Mr. David Davidar who received the
manuscript in trust and owed her a duty to keep its contents
confidential and not appropriate the contents for his own use. Mr.
David Davidar is liable to compensate Ms. Sivasundari Bose for years
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 36 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

and years of dedication and toil put by Ms. Sivasundari Bose into her
work which Mr. David Davidar lifted.
7.27 Not only is Ms. Sivasundari Bose entitled to a share in the
profits earned by Mr. David Davidar from David’s Book, the quantum
of which he alone can disclose, Ms. Sivasundari Bose is also entitled
to a public apology from Mr. David Davidar for having wronged her
morally and materially accompanied by a public acknowledgement
that David’s Book is copied from Ms. Sivasundari’s Book.
7.28 A detailed look through the cross examination of Mr. David
Davidar and Ms. Sivasundari Bose would show that Mr. David
Davidar’s answers to all material questions are evasive and elusive,
exhibiting arrogance while insinuating that he was being asked absurd
questions while Ms. Sivasundari Bose comes across as an honest
witness who answers all questions truthfully, unfazed and undaunted
by the grilling she is put through.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MR. DAVID
DAVIDAR:
8. The learned Counsel for Mr. David Davidar made the following
submissions:
8.1 Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s alleged manuscript, sample chapters and
synopsis have not been exhibited despite the fact that Ms. Sivasundari
Bose has stated in her cross-examination that the case is between her
manuscript and David’s Book. Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s sample
chapters, alleged manuscript submitted on 24.01.2000 and synopsis
have not been exhibited in the present Suits. Ms. Sivasundari Bose has
compared David’s Book and Sivasundari’s Book. In any case, even a
direct comparison between both the books does not reveal any
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 37 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

substantial similarity in expression or structure. Besides differences in
terms of characters, plots, sub-plots, writing style, and narrative
progression, fundamentally. David’s Book is a historical, generational
saga that takes place in three wholly fictional places, drawn from the
author’s imagination, whereas, Sivasundari’s Book does not create or
invent any fictional places, she simply places her characters in real-life
village and urban settings in Tamil Nadu.
8.2 There can be no monopoly over historical facts and ideas. Ms.
Sivasundari Bose has alleged that 35 common issues have been
copied by Mr. David Davidar in David’s Book like: Freedom
movement, Siddha Medicine, Women being subservient to men,
Famine and small-pox, Diabetic coma etc. Ms. Sivasundari Bose
being subsequent to the market, should be explaining similarities, if
any. The alleged similarities are attributable to features like
multi-generational saga, maps, family trees, that have been present in
fiction from around the nineteenth century and have not been invented
or are an original creation of Ms. Sivasundari Bose. Historical
content, regional and time setting are public domain material and not
a subject matter of copyright protection and themes like caste of the
family, number of generations and social / political / religious trends
etc., are also public domain material not subject to copyright
protection that are to be found in various books and were prevalent
during that period in the region.
8.3 No author can claim exclusive rights over historical or cultural
facts that belong to the public domain. Both Mr. David Davidar and
Ms. Sivasundari Bose belong to the Nadar community of Tamil Nadu.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 38 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Both were born and grew up in the coastal regions of Tamil Nadu and
so share a common historical, cultural, and societal heritage.
Inevitably, certain customs and traditions and religious observances
appear in both books although there is no resemblance whatsoever in
the way they are described or used in the narrative. Both authors are
writing about Tamil Nadu's early 20th-century history, although only
46 pages of Ms. Sivasundari’s Book correspond to the period covered
by David’s Book, thus there is bound to be some overlap in terms of
historical events, personalities, customs, and traditions of the time.
There is no similarity in the way these uncopyrightable historical and
cultural facts are used.
8.4 It is argued by the learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose that
there is nothing on record to suggest that anything for David’s Book
has been written prior to January 2000. There is a famous short story
called MIST, written by Mr. David Davidar, which was published in
1991, much prior to 2000. A word by word and line by line comparison
between the MIST and David’s Book shows that the MIST published in
1991 forms a large part of Section III in David’s Book.
8.5 During Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s cross examination, on asking
from where she got the idea of a family tree, Ms. Sivasundari Bose
replied that she has also read a few books that are generational sagas.
Once Ms. Sivasundari Bose started her work, she realized that unless
she put up a family tree the readers will find it difficult to follow the
characters. Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s own statement shows that she is
well aware of borrowing from prior literary models. Her accusation
that Mr. David Davidar copied the family tree from Sivasundari’s Book
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 39 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

is not only hypocritical but factually baseless. Mr. David Davidar’s
inclusion of a family tree and geographical map are devices commonly
used in multi-generational novels to aid reader comprehension, and
their mere inclusion cannot be monopolised by Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
These are historical contents in the public domain and features, like
maps and family trees that are found in other books in the same genre.
8.6 Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s 1996 submission consisted of only
sample pages, not a manuscript. Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s alleged
January 2000 submission was likewise limited to sample chapters and
synopsis. As has been admitted by Ms. Sivasundari Bose in her email
dated 20.09.2003 to Mr. A.A. Mohan. Unconsolidated manuscripts
were accepted at Penguin India in line with the Penguin India policy,
which was still in place in the year 2000, according to which Penguin
India’s submission system was strictly filtered and where unsolicited
submissions were concerned the submission of complete manuscripts
was discouraged. Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s 2003 submission contains
only a synopsis and sample chapters, again confirming that she never
submitted a full manuscript to Penguin India. Therefore, even on Ms.
Sivasundari Bose’s own showing, no full manuscript of Sivasundari’s
Book was ever received or accessible within Penguin India.
8.7 Even Ms. Sayoni Basu confirmed that she has no recollection
of ever seeing Sivasundari’s Book in manuscript or other form or
having met her. Further, if Ms. Sivasundari Bose had submitted the
manuscript / book or even sample chapters to Ms. Sayoni Basu from
Penguin India, it is rather odd that no acknowledgment / rejection
letter / email was sent by Penguin to Ms. Sivasundari Bose, when the
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 40 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

same was done in 1996 and even subsequently in 2003. Even
assuming that in 2000 a floppy disc was submitted to Ms. Sayoni
Basu on 24.01.2000 by the Defendant, the same, at best, comprised a
synopsis and sample chapters, not the full manuscript by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose’s own admission in her letter to Mr. A.A Mohan
dated 20.09.2003. The 2003 submission to Penguin India was also a
synopsis and sample chapters, as proved by a perusal of the rejection
letter from Penguin India dated 11.08.2003 as also admitted by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose during her cross-examination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: .
Issue No. (v)
WHETHER CS(COMM) 581/2024 FILED BY MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE
IS BARRED BY LIMITATION
9. The learned Counsel for Mr. David Davidar has contended that the
Suit, CS(COMM) 581/2024, filed by Ms. Sivasundari Bose is beyond the
period of limitation as it was filed in 2011, well after the cause of action had
arisen in 2002, i.e., when David’s Book was published or after August 2003,
i.e., when Ms. Sivasundari Bose became aware of David’s Book.
10. Per contra , the learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose has
submitted that Mr. David Davidar had been living abroad from 03.01.2004
to 31.12.2010 as has been confirmed by Mr. David Davidar in his Affidavit,
therefore, the period that Mr. David Davidar was living abroad ought to be
excluded while computing the period of limitation as provided in Section
15(5) of the Limitation Act. If the period that Mr. David Davidar was living
abroad is excluded then the Suit, CS(COMM) 581/2024, has been filed
within the limitation period.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 41 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

11. Upon a perusal of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act and the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Satya Jain (supra) and PC.K. Muthia
Chettiar (supra) there is no cavil that the present case falls within the
exception of Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act and the period that Mr.
David Davidar was living abroad ought to be excluded while computing the
period of limitation and therefore, CS(COMM) 581/2024 filed by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose is held to have been filed within the limitation period.
12. Accordingly, Issue No. (v) has been decided in favour of Ms.
Sivasundari Bose and against Mr. David Davidar.
Issue Nos. (i), (vi), (viii) and (ix)
WHETHER THE BOOK ‘THE HOUSE OF BLUE MANGOES’
WRITTEN BY MR. DAVID DAVIDAR INFRINGES THE COPYRIGHT
OF MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE IN THE BOOK ‘GOLDEN STAG’ AND
WHETHER MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF
OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION DIRECTING MR. DAVID DAVIDAR
TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BOOK ‘THE HOUSE OF
BLUE MANGOES’ IS BASED ON THE MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED
BY MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE
13. The learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted that Ms.
Sivasundari Bose started working on Sivasundari’s Book in the year 1987
and the first version of her book was complete by 1991, after which she
pitched the manuscript to various movie producers from Tamil cinema to
sell it as a script for a movie. As she could not find a deal to sell
Sivasundari’s Book as a script for a movie, it was modified so that she could
get Sivasundari’s Book published.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 42 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

14. The learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted that Ms.
Sivasundari Bose submitted her manuscript to several publishing houses,
including Penguin India, whose Chief Executive Officer at the time was Mr.
David Davidar. Her initial submission to Penguin India occurred in 1996
and was declined by letter dated 03.10.1996. She subsequently resubmitted
the manuscript on 24.01.2000 but did not receive a response regarding this
submission. The third submission was in 2003, which was after the
publication of David’s Book.
15. The learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted that upon
submission of the manuscript for Sivasundari’s Book to Ms. Sayoni Basu,
Junior Editor at Penguin India, on 24.01.2000, the manuscript was
subsequently provided by Ms. Basu to Mr. David Davidar, CEO of Penguin
India. It is alleged that Mr. Davidar breached trust and misappropriated
elements of Sivasundari’s Book in the creation of David’s Book. To support
the claim of copyright infringement, it is noted that there are significant
similarities between the story outline featured on the paperback of David’s
Book and that of Sivasundari’s Book. Furthermore, the map and family tree
included at the beginning of David’s Book appear to have been directly
taken from Ms. Sivasundari Bose's manuscript, with only character names
being altered. The resemblance between the stories, character traits, and
events is argued to be beyond mere coincidence. Although Mr. David
Davidar has stated that he began writing David’s Book in the 1980s, no
evidence has been provided to support this assertion. Ms. Sivasundari Bose
has also submitted a comparative list of characters, issues, concepts,
historical facts, and events.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 43 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

16. The learned Counsel for Mr. David Davidar has submitted that he had
started writing David’s Book in the 1980s, and the first draft of David’s
Book was ready in April 2000. On 17.11.2000, Mr. David Davidar signed an
agreement with the first publisher for David’s Book, Phoenix House, a
division of the Orion Publishing Group Ltd. David’s Book adopts the
well-known and common place features of numerous such
multi-generational family sagas, from the family tree and map, to the series
of generational conflicts attendant on social change and the often contrasting
generational responses to it, all in the context of the broader history of a
country or a region, essentially, the interplay between social and / or
political history and the individual characters of the novel, over a more or
less extended period. Mr. David Davidar never knew of Ms. Sivasundari
Bose before receiving the Legal Notice.
17. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for Mr. David
Davidar that a copy of the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book was not
received by Penguin India on 24.01.2000, Ms. Sivasundari Bose has been
unable to produce any evidence that the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book
was submitted to Penguin India on 24.01.2000, except the visiting card of
Ms. Sayoni Basu, which she could have procured from anywhere. Even if
she had submitted the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book to Ms. Sayoni
Basu, Penguin India receives hundreds of unconsolidated manuscripts every
month, most of them are rejected by junior editors at Penguin India and only
a few of them reach the desk of the CEO. Further, even if Ms. Sayoni Basu
had forwarded a copy of the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book to Mr. David
Davidar, the manuscript would have only contained a few sample chapters
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 44 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

and not the whole book, therefore it is impossible that Mr. David Davidar
had access to Sivasundari’s Book while writing David’s Book.
18. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for Mr. David
Davidar that Sivasundari’s Book, which was not published until 2006, deals
with the entire twentieth century in South India, unlike David’s Book which
stops at 1947, Sivasundari’s Book devotes only 45 pages to the period
covered by David’s Book. Upon comparison, Mr. David Davidar found
absolutely no similarity between the two books except for ones that are
attributable to public-domain historical content. The two books are wholly
dissimilar in text, style, plot structure, events described, characterization;
there is no similarity between the two in this or any other literary feature.
There is no question of copyright in any historical events either in general or
in relation to any particular region, nor can there be any copyright in a whole
genre of fiction such as the commonplace genre of multi-generational family
sagas. There are a lot of differences between David’s Book and
Sivasundari’s Book even on a prima facie comparison between the two
books like number of words, pages, lines and sources cited and the period of
history covered by the two books.
19. Considering the above rival submissions, at the outset, it is noted that
as per the case of Ms. Sivasundari Bose, she submitted only a manuscript to
Penguin India on 24.01.2000. Ultimately, Sivasundari’s Book was released
sometime in 2006. The manuscript stated to have been submitted to Penguin
India on 24.01.2000 is not produced on record. Admittedly, Ms. Sivasundari
Bose made changes to her book even after the year 2000. Accordingly, a
direct comparison between David’s Book and Sivasundari’s Book cannot be
the basis of deciding copyright infringement and it is the manuscript that she
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 45 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

allegedly submitted to Penguin India on 24.01.2000 that should be the basis
of comparison to ascertain copyright infringement. As Ms. Sivasundari Bose
has been unable to produce the manuscript that was allegedly submitted to
Penguin India on 24.01.2000, the claim of infringement of copyright by
comparing David’s Book and Sivasundari’s Book cannot be sustained on
that ground alone.
20. Furthermore, Ms. Sivasundari Bose has not demonstrated that Mr.
David Davidar had access to the complete manuscript of Sivasundari’s
Book, which she claims to have submitted to Ms. Sayoni Basu, Junior Editor
at Penguin India. Ms. Sivasundari Bose has provided no substantive
evidence supporting her assertion that a full manuscript was delivered to
Penguin India, apart from supplying Ms. Sayoni Basu’s visiting card, which
is insufficient to establish that the manuscript was in fact forwarded to Mr.
David Davidar. The presumption that Mr. Davidar, as CEO of Penguin
India, would have had access to the manuscript is unsupported by further
proof. Additionally, in her affidavit, Ms. Sayoni Basu has stated that she did
not forward a copy of Sivasundari’s Book manuscript to Mr. Davidar.
Consequently, Ms. Sivasundari Bose has not established that Mr. Davidar
had access to the manuscript before the publication of David’s Book in
2002, which was prior to publication of Sivasundari’s Book in 2006. For a
claim of copyright infringement to succeed, it must be shown that Mr.
Davidar had access to the manuscript for Sivasundari’s Book, as held in the
judgment of Mansoob Haider (supra).
21. Even if it is assumed that Ms. Sayoni Basu received a manuscript
from Ms. Sivasundari Bose on 24.01.2000 and forwarded a copy to Mr.
David Davidar, the manuscript underwent revisions after that date prior to
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 46 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

the publication of Sivasundari’s Book in 2006. The original manuscript
purportedly submitted to Penguin India on 24.01.2000 has not been
produced by Ms. Sivasundari Bose. As a result, it cannot be verified whether
the elements of Sivasundari’s Book, which are alleged to have been copied
by Mr. David Davidar in his book, were present in the version submitted to
Penguin India. Furthermore, in her letter dated 20.09.2003 addressed to Mr.
A.A. Mohan, Ms. Sivasundari Bose acknowledged retaining floppy disks
containing the sample chapters and synopsis sent to Penguin India.
Therefore, it cannot be held that the complete manuscript of Sivasundari’s
Book was available to Mr. David Davidar, if at all.
22. Upon consideration of the arguments presented by both Parties and a
review of David’s Book and Sivasundari’s Book including the comparative
table of the similarities, it is evident that each work is a multi-generational
saga set in Tamil Nadu, India, reflecting the shared heritage of Mr. David
Davidar and Ms. Sivasundari Bose, both members of the Nadar community.
Notably, David’s Book covers the period from 1899 to 1947, while
Sivasundari’s Book spans 1900 to 2002. Given these overlapping contexts,
similarities such as character names, traits, societal backgrounds, and
historical references are to be expected. It is well established that copyright
protection extends to the expression of ideas rather than the underlying ideas
themselves. Accordingly, any comparative analysis should concentrate on
similarities in expression rather than abstract concepts to determine whether
copyright infringement has occurred.
23. In R.G. Anand (supra), the Supreme Court had held that ideas,
principles, themes, and historical or legendary facts, being part of common
knowledge, are not eligible for copyright protection. Individuals are permitted
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 47 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

to select such ideas as subjects and develop them through their own unique
expression. When two authors address the same subject matter, some degree
of similarity is unavoidable due to the shared central concept; however, these
similarities or coincidences alone do not constitute piracy or plagiarism. A
key test for infringement is whether an average reader, spectator, or viewer,
after considering both works, is left with a definite and unmistakable
impression that the later work replicates the original. Consequently, the
primary question is whether the defendant has simply adopted the underlying
idea from the copyrighted work, or has also appropriated its expression
including the manner, arrangement, and sequence from situation to situation
and scene to scene, even if minor variations exist.
24. The differences between David's Book and Sivasundari's Book
significantly outweigh any purported similarities, which alone are
inadequate to support a claim of copyright infringement in favour of Ms.
Sivasundari Bose. The inclusion of maps and family trees is common in
multi-generational sagas and cannot be uniquely attributed to Ms.
Sivasundari Bose. Therefore, she does not have exclusive copyright over
such elements.
25. Even if it is accepted that Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted the
complete manuscript of Sivasundari's Book to Penguin India on 24.01.2000,
and a copy subsequently reached Mr. David Davidar, a comprehensive
comparison of the two books does not substantiate the allegation of
copyright infringement. In the absence of access to Ms. Sivasundari's Book
by Mr. David Davidar, Ms. Sivasundari Bose bears a heightened burden of
proof regarding her claims of copying, as recognized in the judgment of
Shivani Tibrewala (supra), a standard she has been unable to satisfy.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 48 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

26. Accordingly, Issue Nos. (i), (vi), (viii) and (ix) are decided in favour
of Mr. David Davidar and against Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
Issue No. (vii)
WHETHER MR. DAVID DAVIDAR HAS COMMITTED BREACH OF
TRUST AND ILLEGALLY MISAPPROPRIATED THE MANUSCRIPT
SUBMITTED BY MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE TO M/S. PENGUIN INDIA
FOR HIS OWN USE?
27. The learned Counsel representing Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted
that she submitted the manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book to Penguin India on
three occasions: initially in 1996, which was returned with a rejection letter
dated 03.10.1996; subsequently on 24.01.2000 via floppy disk, after which
Penguin India neither rejected nor accepted it for publication; and finally on
24.07.2003, when the manuscript was again rejected by letter dated
11.08.2003. As the manuscript submitted to Ms. Sayoni Basu was not
returned to Ms. Sivasundari Bose, the same was forwarded to Mr. David
Davidar, who allegedly used its contents in composing David’s Book.
28. The learned Counsel for Mr. David Davidar has submitted that he
never had access to the manuscript submitted by Ms. Sivasundari Bose. Ms.
Sayoni Basu in her affidavit has also stated that she does not remember
seeing the manuscript submitted by Ms. Sivasundari Bose in the year 2000
and neither did she forward it to Mr. David Davidar. Ms. Sivasundari Bose
has only submitted the visiting card of Ms. Sayoni Basu to show that she had
met her, however, she could have obtained the visiting card of Ms. Sayoni
Basu from anywhere and does not prove that Ms. Sivasundari Bose
submitted her manuscript to Ms. Sayoni Basu. Further, Penguin India
received numerous unconsolidated manuscripts and all of them do not reach
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 49 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

the CEO of Penguin India. Usually, Junior Editors reject most of the
unconsolidated manuscripts and only a certain few with great potential reach
the desk of the CEO. Without proving that Mr. David Davidar had access to
the manuscript submitted by her, Ms. Sivasundari Bose cannot prove a case
of breach of trust and misappropriation of the manuscript submitted to
Penguin India on 24.01.2000.
29. Further, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for Mr. David
Davidar that even if it is agreed that Ms. Sivasundari Bose submitted her
manuscript to Penguin India on 24.01.2000, she would have only submitted
sample chapters and synopsis to Penguin India and not a copy of
Sivasundari’s Book, therefore, Mr. David Davidar could not have copied
Sivasundari’s Book to write his book. Ms. Sivasundari Bose in her letter
dated 20.09.2003 sent to Mr. A.A. Mohan has stated that she only sent
sample chapters to Penguin India in the year 2000.
30. Considering the submissions of the Parties on this Issue, it is evident
that Ms. Sivasundari Bose has not produced any evidence that Mr. David
Davidar had access to the manuscript, let alone access to the full manuscript
for Sivasundari’s Book. Ms. Sivasundari Bose was unable to prove that Mr.
David Davidar had access to the manuscript submitted by her to Penguin
India on 24.01.2000 and that Mr. David Davidar had misappropriated the
manuscript submitted by her to write David’s Book. Further, the manuscript
allegedly submitted to Penguin India by Ms. Sivasundari Bose on
24.01.2000 has not been filed along with the present Suit and the
side-by-side comparison between David’s Book and Sivasundari’s Book
cannot be the basis for claiming breach of trust and misappropriation of the
manuscript submitted by Ms. Sivasundari Bose on 24.01.2000 when
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 50 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Sivasundari’s Book was published in the year 2006, i.e., around four years
after David’s Book was published in the year 2002.
31. Further, as has already been observed above, David’s Book does not
infringe the copyright of Ms. Sivasundari Bose in Sivasundari’s Book.
Accordingly, the claim that Mr. David Davidar has committed breach of
trust and illegally misappropriated the manuscript submitted by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose on 24.01.2000 is devoid of merit.
32. Accordingly, Issue No. (vii) is decided in favour of Mr. David
Davidar and against Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
Issue No. (x)
WHETHER MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE IS ENTITLED TO 50% OF
PROFITS EARNED BY MR. DAVID DAVIDAR FROM THE SALE OF
DAVID’S BOOK ‘THE HOUSE OF BLUE MANGOES’
33. Given the determination that David’s Book does not infringe upon the
copyright of Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s work and that Mr. David Davidar has
neither breached trust nor wrongfully appropriated the manuscript submitted
by Ms. Sivasundari Bose to Penguin India, there is no basis for Ms.
Sivasundari Bose to claim damages from Mr. David Davidar.
34. Accordingly, Issue No. (x) is decided in favour of Mr. David Davidar
and against Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
Issue No. (ii)
WHETHER MR. DAVID DAVIDAR IS ENTITLED TO A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST GROUNDLESS THREATS OF LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
35. Mr. David Davidar filed CS(COMM) 706/2018 seeking a declaration,
permanent injunction restraining groundless threats, defamation and
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 51 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

malicious / injurious falsehood, damages etc., invoking Section 60 of the
Copyright Act. The learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose has submitted
that as she has filed the Suit, CS(COMM) 581/2024 with due diligence, the
Suit, CS(COMM) 706/2018, filed by Mr. David Davidar has become
infructuous and ought to be dismissed. The proviso to Section 60 of the
Copyright Act provides that Section 60 of the Copyright Act shall not apply
if the person making such threats, with due diligence, commences and
prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him.
36. The Proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act remains applicable
even when a subsequent suit for copyright infringement is filed, provided
that such action is undertaken with due diligence and in such a situation, the
original suit challenging groundless threats will not be maintainable. In
instances involving composite suits, only the prayer for an injunction against
groundless threats becomes infructuous. A defendant initiating a suit for
copyright infringement in response to a suit seeking an injunction against
groundless threats must proceed with due diligence, ensuring the
proceedings are well-structured and not subject to unreasonable delay. Any
undue delay may indicate that the defendant lacks a genuine claim and was
issuing threats without merit. In the present case, Ms. Sivasundari Bose
instituted CS(COMM) 581/2024 for copyright infringement in accordance
with the Legal Notice sent to Mr. David Davidar, acting with due diligence
and without any undue delay. Consequently, the prayer for an injunction
against groundless threat of legal proceedings has become infructuous.
37. A review of the reliefs sought in CS(COMM) 706/2018 indicates that
the prayer for a permanent injunction against groundless threats of legal
proceedings constitutes only one element of the composite suit. The other
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 52 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

claims, specifically those seeking injunctive relief and damages for
defamation, subsist notwithstanding the fact that the prayer concerning
groundless threats has become infructuous. The surviving claims related to
defamation and the damages, which are outside the scope of Section 60 of
the Copyright Act, continue to be maintainable. Accordingly, CS(COMM)
706/2018 has not become infructuous in its entirety; only the prayer for a
mandatory injunction against groundless threats of legal proceedings is now
infructuous.
38. Accordingly, Issue No. (ii) is decided in favour of Ms. Sivasundari
Bose and against Mr. David Davidar.
Issue No. (iii)
WHETHER MR. DAVID DAVIDAR IS ENTITLED TO A RELIEF OF
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
MADE BY MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE
39. The learned Counsel for Mr. David Davidar has submitted that Ms.
Sivasundari Bose has made public statements defaming Mr. David Davidar.
Ms. Sivasundari Bose acted with defamatory intent acting with malice to
bring down Mr. David Davidar’s public image and reputation in the eyes of
the literary world and the general public, by making utterly false statements
publicly that Mr. David Davidar had copied Sivasundari’s Book, maliciously
and without any cause. Ms. Sivasundari Bose defamed Mr. David Davidar in
front of Chitra Banerji Divakaruni, who is an author and a public figure, as
well as Ms. Beulah Shekhar, National General Secretary of YWCA. Since
Ms. Sivasundari Bose has made false statements to third parties maligning
the reputation of Mr. David Davidar, Ms. Sivasundari Bose is liable for
defamation. Further, Ms. Sivasundari Bose gave an interview to Outlook
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 53 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

Magazine, after the institution of the present Suits, wherein she was asked if
she believed that David’s Book was based on her manuscript to which she
answered that she believed that it is the truth and the matter is sub-judice
and the decision depends on the Court.
40. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for Mr. David
Davidar that Ms. Sivasundari Bose has intentionally defamed Mr. David
Davidar publicly by accusing him of plagiarism and thus affecting his
morality, honour, and professional integrity / reputation. It has been held in
the judgment of DP Choudhary & Ors. (supra) that if a person has in fact
injured another’s reputation, they are liable even if they did not intend to do
so and the words are actionable if false and defamatory, even if published
accidentally or inadvertently. In the instant case, the defamatory statements
are intentional.
41. Per contra , the learned Counsel for Ms. Sivasundari Bose asserted
that, upon discovering the alleged misappropriation of her work by Mr.
David Davidar, Ms. Sivasundari Bose appropriately sought guidance from
trusted friends and legal professionals to consider available remedies. Such
actions do not constitute defamation. Further, Mr. David Davidar has neither
substantively alleged nor proven any defamatory conduct. Ms. Sivasundari
Bose acted within her rights to safeguard her interests by consulting those
qualified and trustworthy. Her actions are explicitly covered by exceptions
to defamation, as her intent was solely to protect her interests rather than to
damage the reputation of Mr. David Davidar.
42. Based on the foregoing submissions, it is determined that Ms.
Sivasundari Bose’s communications with Ms. Chitra Banerji Divakaruni and
Ms. Beulah Shekhar were for seeking advice and constituted outreach to
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 54 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

third parties for grievance redressal rather than acts of defamation against
Mr. David Davidar. The statements in question, alleged to be defamatory,
were made by Ms. Bose in good faith as part of her efforts to seek resolution
for perceived injustice. In this context, good faith entails acting with due
care, caution, and prudence, considering the relevant circumstances. The
standard of such care and caution is influenced by the position of the
individual making the statement. Ultimately, assessing whether good faith
was exercised requires careful consideration of the facts and circumstances
specific to each case. This includes examining the nature and context of the
statements, the status of the person making them, any potential malice
involved, the extent of enquiries made prior to their communication, and
whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the party acted
diligently and was satisfied regarding the veracity of the imputation.
43. Accordingly, Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s communications regarding her
grievance to her close associates and friends were conducted in good faith
and served the purpose of safeguarding her rights. There is insufficient
evidence to establish a claim of defamation arising from Ms. Bose’s
interactions with Ms. Chitra Banerji Divakaruni and Ms. Beulah Shekhar.
44. With regard to Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s interview with Outlook India,
a person claiming in good faith that she believes that her case has merits and
the matter is sub judice before the court cannot constitute defamation of the
defendant in the case. Ms. Sivasundari Bose has not defamed Mr. David
Davidar by answering the query and claiming that she believes her case to
be true. Hence, no case of defamation is made out against Ms. Sivasundari
Bose by Mr. David Davidar.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 55 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

45. Accordingly, Issue No. (iii) is decided in favour of Ms. Sivasundari
Bose and against Mr. David Davidar.
Issue No. (iv)
WHETHER MR. DAVID DAVIDAR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
DAMAGES FROM MS. SIVASUNDARI BOSE
46. Given the conclusions reached in Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii) - namely,
that Mr. Davidar’s claim for groundless threats of legal proceedings was
rendered moot upon the filing of CS(COMM) 581/2024 by Ms. Sivasundari
Bose and that Mr. David Davidar has not established a case for defamation,
the issue of awarding damages to Mr. David Davidar does not arise.
47. Accordingly, Issue No. (iv) is decided against Mr. David Davidar.
Issue No. (xi)
RELIEF
48. In view of the above findings, Ms. Sivasundari Bose has failed to
make out a case of copyright infringement against Mr. David Davidar and
she is accordingly, neither entitled to mandatory injunction as sought for nor
for rendition of accounts.
49. Mr. David Davidar has also failed to establish a case for defamation
against Ms. Sivasundari Bose and his claim for groundless threats of legal
proceedings does not survive upon filing of CS(COMM) 581/2024 by Ms.
Sivasundari Bose. Accordingly, Mr. David Davidar is not entitled to recover
any damages from Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
CONCLUSION:
50. Accordingly, in view of the above analysis, it is held that:
i. CS(COMM) 581/2024, filed by Ms. Sivasundari Bose is not
barred by limitation.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 56 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13

ii. The Book ‘House of Blue Mangoes’, written by Mr. David
Davidar does not infringe the Copyright of Ms. Sivasundari Bose
in her Book ‘Golden Stag’.
iii. Mr. David Davidar has not made out a case of defamation against
Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
iv. The mandatory injunction sought by Mr. David Davidar against
Ms. Sivasundari Bose against groundless threats of legal
proceedings does not survive upon filing of CS(COMM)
581/2024 by Ms. Sivasundari Bose.
v. None of Parties are entitled to the relief of Damages.
51. In view of the above findings, the Parties shall bear their own costs.
52. Accordingly, both the Suits being CS(COMM) 706/2018 and
CS(COMM) 581/2024 are hereby dismissed. Pending Applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 30, 2026
ak
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 706/2018 and CS(COMM) 581/2024 Page 57 of 57
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
19:14:13