Facts
The Appellant (Publisher) and Respondent (Author) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 12.10.2006, granting the Appellant exclusive rights to publish the Respondent’s "Business Studies" books for Classes XI and XII
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3On 29.12.2019, the Respondent issued a legal notice terminating the MoA
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3On 06.03.2020, the District Judge granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant from publishing or selling the books
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2The Appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC to vacate this stay, alleging concealment of facts and prior breach by the Respondent
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 5-6The District Judge dismissed the application on 27.03.2025, holding that the validity of the termination was a matter for trial
Source reference: p. 2, para. 15-16Issues
1. Whether the interim injunction granted against the Appellant should be vacated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC on grounds of alleged concealment and the Respondent's own breach of contract
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5-62. Whether the court should interfere with the discretionary order of the trial court when the suit has already reached the stage of evidence
Source reference: p. 6, para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which provides for the discharge, variation, or setting aside of an injunction order if a party has made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular
Source reference: p. 2, para. 16The court considered the general principles for interlocutory injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, specifically the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10In terminable contracts, the legality of the termination is a substantive issue to be decided at trial rather than at an interlocutory stage
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11Reasoning
The Court observed that the Appellant admitted to receiving the termination notice dated 29.12.2019
Source reference: p. 2, para. 14Once an agreement is prima facie terminated, the publisher loses the immediate right to circulate the work, and the questions regarding the "rightness" of that termination—including the Appellant's claims of prior breach by the Author and concealment of royalty payments—are complex factual disputes that require a full trial
Source reference: p. 3, para. 15; p. 6, para. 11The Court found that the Appellant failed to prove that the Respondent made a "false and misleading statement in relation to a material particular" sufficient to invoke the proviso of Order XXXIX Rule 4
Source reference: p. 2, para. 16Since the suit had already reached the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, it was inappropriate to disturb the status quo established by the interim order
Source reference: p. 6, para. 12Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal, answering the issues in the negative, holding that because the agreement was terminable and had been terminated, no ground was made out to interfere with the trial court's refusal to vacate the injunction
The interim order dated 06.03.2020 remains in force, and all contested pleas regarding the breach of contract are to be decided in the final trial; no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11-12Original Court PDF
Geeta Publishing HousevsSubhash Dey
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in