ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDU., MANIPAL & ANR. versus B. MALINI MALLYA

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009) 1 S.C.R. 615 
ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDU., MANIPAL & ANR. 
A 
~ 
v. 
8. MALIN! MALLYA 
(Civil Appeal No. 389 of 2008) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. 
SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
t -
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957: 
c 
ss. 2(y) and 52(1)(a)(i}, (i) and (I)- "work"- 'dramatic work' 
-
Suit claiming damages for copyright in respect of 
'Prasangas' of 'Yaksharanga' Ballet evolved from traditional 
-
'Yakshagana' - HELD: Copyright in respect of performance 
of dance would not come within the purview of literary work but D 
... 
would come within the purview of definition of 'dramatic work' 
- Defendant would be entitled to benefit of the provisions 
contained in clauses (a) and (i) of s.52(1). 
The respondent claiming copyright through a Will 
over seven 'Prasangas' of Yaksharanga Ballet, namely, (i) 
E 
Bhishma Vijaya; (ii) Nala Damayanthi; (iii) Kanakangi (iv) 
,-
Abhimanyu Vadha; (v} Chitrangadha; (vi) Panchavati; and 
(vii) Ganga Charitha, evolved from 'Yakshagana' by the 
testator of the Will, filed a suit for damages against the 
appellant-Academy for violation of her copyright. The trial 
F 
court granted the injunction restraining the defendant or 
their employees or agents from performing the said 
Ballets/Prasangs in any manner as were evolved 
distinctively by the testator. On appeal, the High Court 
modified the restraint order to the effect, if the appellants G 
desired to stage any of the described Ballets in the 
... 
manner and form as conceived in all respects, namely, 
costumes, choreography and direction by the testator, 
they could do so only in accordance with the provisions 
615 
H 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A of the Copyright Act, 1957. 
,... 
In the instant appeal filed by the Academy, it was 
primarily contended that the High Court was not correct 
in holding that dramatic work for the purpose of 
B copyright was a part of the literary work, as they connote 
two different things. It was submitted that the appellant 
being an educational institution organised the Ballet for 
non-paying audience; and that the injunction granted in 
~ 
favour of the plaintiff was not in terms of the provisions 
of the Copyright Act, 1957 as the appellant was entitled 
....
c to the benefit of s.52(1)(i) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, but modifying the injunction 
order, the Court 
• 
D 
HELD: 1.1. Broadly speaking, a dramatic work may 
also come within the purview of literary work being a part 
,... 
of dramatic literature. However, the provisions of the 
Copyright Act, 1957 make a distinction between the 
'literary work' and 'dramatic work'. Keeping in view the 
E statutory provisions, there cannot be any doubt 
whatsoever that copyright in respect of performance of 
'dance' would not come within the purview of the literary 
work but would come within the purview of the definition 
-. 
of 'dramatic work'. [Para 14] [630-C-E] 
F 
Encyclopaedia Britannica (Vol-IV) 15th Edition, referred 
to. 
1.2 Indisputably, in view of the submissions made at 
the bar, the defendant-respondent had acquired 
G copyright in respect of seven Yakshagana Prasangas as 
also in respect of Yakshagana dramatic or theatrical form 
as a residuary legatee in terms of clause 12 of the Will. 
'1- -
[Para 13] [628-E-F] 
H 
2.1. Decree of injunction is an equitable relief. The 
ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDU., MANI PAL & ANR. v. B. 
617 
MALINI MALL YA 
court while passing a decree for permanent injunction 
A 
would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and is obliged 
to consider the statutory provisions governing the same. 
The High Court should have clarified that the appellants 
can also take the statutory benefit of the provisions 
contained in clauses (a), (i) and (I) of sub-section (1) of B 
Section 52 of the Act. [Para 18 and 20] [631-G; 634-E-F] 
~ 
2.2. Section 52 of the Act provides for certain acts 
-
which would not constitute an infringement of copyright. 
When a fair dealing is made, inter alia, of a literary or c 
dramatic work for the purpose of private use including 
research and criticism or review, whether of that work or 
of any other work, the right in terms of the provisions of 
-
the said Act cannot be claimed. Thus, if some 
performance or dance is carried out within the purview 
D 
~-· 
of the said clause, the order of injunction shall not be 
applicable. Similarly, appellant being an educational 
institution, if the dance is performed within the meaning 
of provisions of clause (i) of sub-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.