Delhi High Court examines copyright, government work status, and moral rights in a DPR consultancy dispute between Envitech and Rudrabhishek Enterprises.
Brief Introductory Note
Brief Introductory Note: This case, “Envitech Consultants India Pvt Ltd vs Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited & Ors.”, decided by the Delhi High Court, centers on a dispute involving allegations of copyright infringement linked to consultancy works, more specifically Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for water supply schemes in Uttar Pradesh. The core legal question is whether the Plaintiff, a consultancy firm, retains copyright and authorship over those DPRs or if, as claimed by the Defendants, the works constitute “Government Work” under Indian copyright law, making the State the copyright owner. The matter came before the court as an application by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking summary rejection of the Plaintiff’s suit.
Factual Background
Envitech Consultants India Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) is a registered consultancy start-up that undertakes projects in sanitation and public health engineering. Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited (Defendant No. 1) is another consultancy, awarded contracts by the State Water Sanitation Mission (SWSM), Uttar Pradesh, to prepare DPRs for various districts, including Chitrakoot. Defendant No. 1 subcontracted work for the Chitrakoot DPRs to the Plaintiff after one of Plaintiff’s directors, previously employed as a general manager at Defendant No. 1, helped facilitate this appointment.
- Plaintiff prepared and submitted DPRs.
- Defendant No. 1 allegedly terminated contract and used work without attribution.
- Defendant claimed breach of contract by Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff claimed full compliance and reputational loss.
Plaintiff’s main allegation is that despite successfully preparing and submitting the required DPRs, Defendant No. 1 terminated their contract and used the Plaintiff’s work without appropriate attribution or consideration. Defendant No. 1 claims the Plaintiff breached its obligations by not following terms of contract (such as actual topographical surveys), forcing Defendant No. 1 to redo the work via separate contractors. The Plaintiff, however, maintains full compliance and asserts removal of authorship, resulting in reputational and financial loss.
Procedural Detail
The Plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and other legal relief under the Copyright Act, 1957. Defendant No. 1 filed an application for summary rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the grounds that the suit was legally barred and the Plaintiff lacked the locus standi under copyright law. Defendant No. 1 also challenged the Plaintiff’s valuation of damages and payment of court fees. Both parties submitted comprehensive pleadings, referencing contracts, communications, and legal notice.
Core Dispute
The pivotal question before the Court is whether the Plaintiff – as a subcontracted consultancy – owns the copyright over the DPRs, or whether, in the absence of an explicit contrary agreement, the DPRs are “Government Work” under Section 17(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, with the Government as first owner. Additional issues include claims of moral rights (removal of authorship, loss of reputation, and credentials), breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential material, and valuation/prayer for damages.
Detailed Reasoning
The Court analyzed the law relating to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, emphasizing that at this stage, the factual assertions in the plaint must be taken at face value and only the plaint and annexed documents can be considered, not the defense’s reply. The court referenced landmark judgments such as Church of Christ Charitable Trust Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) and Jadavbhai Jerambhai Chavda v. Koli Savsi Amra (2023), reiterating that the test is whether, assuming the Plaintiff’s claims to be true, the suit discloses a legitimate cause of action.
On the copyright dispute, the defense primarily relied on Section 17(d) and Section 2(k) of the Copyright Act, arguing that the Plaintiff could not claim ownership since the DPRs were commissioned for the government, which, absent any agreement to the contrary, is deemed the first owner. The Plaintiff countered by highlighting the absence of any direct agreement assigning copyright to the Government and invoked Section 57 of the Act to stress the protection of moral rights of the author irrespective of economic rights or assignment.
Citing Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2002, 2005), the Court underscored the distinction between copyright ownership and an author’s “moral rights”—including the right to claim authorship and the right to restrain distortion of the work. Even if government ultimately owned the economic rights, the moral rights of attribution and integrity persist with the Plaintiff. The Court also considered the Supreme Court guidance in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025) and Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025), which clarify that complex questions of fact and law, including copyright ownership under nuanced contractual and statutory frameworks, cannot be decided at the summary stage.
Regarding the valuation issue, the Court noted established precedent (such as Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, 1987) that the Plaintiff’s bona fide estimation of relief, in absence of any demonstrable arbitrariness or undervaluation, should be accepted unless proven otherwise. As no such case was made out by the Defendant, this objection was also dismissed.
Decision
The Court held that the Plaintiff’s suit discloses a genuine cause of action, particularly concerning claims for violation of moral rights under Section 57, even though its primary claim of copyright ownership may ultimately be a question for trial. As such, summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 was deemed unwarranted. The application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed, and the main suit was listed for further proceedings.
Concluding Note
Concluding Note: This case is a significant illustration of the intersection between copyright law, government contracts, and moral rights of authors. The decision highlights that even if a work is prepared for and potentially owned by government under statutory presumptions, the author’s moral rights can survive and provide a cause of action for judicial determination. Legal nuances concerning statutory presumptions, authorship, and the differentiation between economic and moral rights are affirmed as deserving of full trial and not for summary disposal.
Case Details
| Case Title | Envitech Consultants India Pvt Ltd Vs Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited & Ors. |
|---|---|
| Order Date | 24.11.2025 |
| Case Number | CS COMM 892/2023 |
| Neutral Citation | 2025:DHC:10351 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Hon’ble Judge | Mr. Justice Tejas Karia |
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
