A co-author republished two shared textbooks under a sole byline. The publisher never came to contest it.

A chartered accountant co-wrote two academic textbooks with a publisher, then two years on began bringing out new editions of both under his own name, through other publishers.¹ The publisher called it copyright theft; the accountant said the books had always been his.²

What happened#

Two things carried more weight than anything in that sequence. The respondent produced emails to and from the publisher spanning 2014 to 2016 — manuscript submissions on his side, approvals of draft versions and cover pages on the publisher's — together with the published books themselves, all carrying his name as author (para 14). And nobody was left to dispute any of it: the publisher's own claim of joint authorship rested on "the bare assertion" alone, with no correspondence, contract or credit line on file to back it (para 18).

The charge#

• Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule — conduct which, in the opinion of the Council or its Boards, brings disrepute to the profession.³

It says nothing about who owns a manuscript or a print run; a breach of copyright is not, by itself, a breach of this clause. The complaint itself had been framed more widely, as a violation of "the copyrights and publishing rights of the Complainant Firm, Complainant, eminent authors and co-authors" (para 7). It was the Board's own conclusion that narrowed this down to the one clause that could conceivably apply (para 22).

The Board found the charge not established, and closed the case.

What the respondent said#

He had been teaching and writing academic books since 2013, and said throughout that he was the books' original author — the publisher, in his account, had only handled printing and distribution. No written agreement, assignment deed or copyright transfer document existed between them; the arrangement rested on mutual understanding and good faith (para 12).

He said he had written and supplied the entire manuscript himself by email, that his name appeared as author on the books and their publication records while the publisher's did not, and that he had never been paid the royalty he was owed — which was why he eventually chose to publish independently (para 13, para 16). When the Board directed him to produce the disputed books, he complied, and separately filed the emails from 2014 to 2016 that traced the manuscripts from his own account to the publisher's (para 14).

What the Board held#

With nobody appearing for the publisher, the case stood on his written complaint against the respondent's documents and testimony, and the Board found that gap decisive.

No civil suit had ever been filed over the dispute — no injunction, no claim for damages, no suit to establish copyright ownership. As the Board put it, the absence of adjudication by a competent civil court on ownership or infringement "weakens the allegation that the Respondent had unlawfully appropriated intellectual property belonging exclusively to the Complainant" (para 15).

Co-authorship fared no better. The publisher's claim of having jointly written the books was, in the Board's words, "apart from the bare assertion," unsupported by anything on file, while "in the absence of any documentary evidence demonstrating joint authorship, assignment of rights or any agreement defining the respective intellectual contributions of the parties, the claim of co-authorship remains unsubstantiated on the material presently available before the Board" (para 18).

What was left, the Board said, was a commercial falling-out rather than a professional one: the issues were "predominantly contractual and civil in nature" and would need detailed examination of ownership, publishing arrangements and evidence "before an appropriate forum competent to decide intellectual property disputes" (para 16). On the material actually before it, that material "does not conclusively establish that the Respondent acted dishonestly or in a manner amounting to Misconduct under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949" (para 19).

The order#

The Respondent is, therefore, held Not Guilty of any misconduct under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. (para 21)

The Board's formal finding held him not guilty specifically of the Item (2) of Part IV charge (para 22), and closed the file under Rule 15(2) of the 2007 Procedure Rules.⁴ "Ordered Accordingly. The case stands disposed of." (para 23)

It had taken a single hearing, held with the respondent alone in the room.⁵ By the time judgment was pronounced, the complaint had been with the Institute for close to nine years.⁶

Why it matters#

This section is ours, not the Board's.

A copyright dispute belongs in a civil court, not before the Board. Ownership, assignment and royalties are contractual questions, and the Board said so plainly. Closing this file settled nothing about who owns the books.

Keep the manuscript-stage emails, not just the printed copy. Drafts and cover-page approvals exchanged years before either book was printed are what carried the respondent's account of authorship. That is what a Board asks to see.

Sign the co-authorship agreement before the first edition prints. No deed or contract of any kind existed between these two, and that absence became the strongest argument on one side. Sign while the relationship is still a good one.

A complaint nobody turns up to defend is read as one nobody could defend. The publisher's firm had closed, and no one appeared to answer the respondent's evidence or the Board's own directions.

This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice.