LexR.G.ANAND versus M/S. DELUX FILMS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 218 R.G.ANAND v. M/S. DELUX FILMS & ORS. August 18, 1978 [MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.t !nfrfngnnent of a copyright in a play in a fifn1-What are the tests-- JV hcc!:er copy."i}.!ht can be clahned in a theme. Suit for da111ages for infringenient of a copyright-What are the principles. The appellant-plaintiff is a, playwright, dramatist and producer of stage plays. The appellant had written and produced a number of plays. The subject matter of the appeal however, is the pl2.y entitled 'Hum Hindustani'. This play was written by him in the year 1953 and was enacted in the year 1954 alld thereafter the play proved to be popular. In November 1954 the appellant received a letter from the second defendant-Mr. 11ohan Sehgal requesting the appellant to supply a copy of the play so that he could consider the desirability Of making a film on it. Therea-fter, the appellant and defendant No. 2 met at Delhi. 111 May, 1955 the second defendant announced the production of a.motion picture entitled "New Delhi". The picture v.'aS released in Delhi in September 1956. The appellant saw the picture. The appellant filed a suit alleging that the film "New Delhi" was entirely based upon the play "Hum Hindustani", tha-t the play was narrated by the appel· lant to defendant No. 2 and he dishonestly imitated the same in his film and thus committed an act of piracy as to result in violation of the copy right of the plairttiff. The appellant, therefore, filed the suit for damages, for decree for a·:counts of the profits made by the defendant and a decree for permanent ir..· junction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting the film. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants pleaded that defcndar.t No. 2 is a film director and producer and director of Delux: Films defendant No. 1 that at the instance of a common friend Mr. G&rgi the defendant No. 2 met the appel1ant and saw the script of the play, that the play was inadequ8te for the purpose of making of a full length commercial motion picture. The defen- dants contended that there could be no copy right so far as the subject of pro- vincialism is concerned which can be used or adopted by anybcxly in his O\Vn way. The defendants further contended that the motion picture was quite diffe· rent from the play both in contents, spirit and climax. The mere fact of some similarities between the films and the play could be explained by the fact tli.at the ideai provincialism was the common source of the play as also of the film. The trial court r84ised several issues and came to the co1.1clusion that the appel· lant v.1as the owner of the copy right in 'Hum Hindustani' but there 'vas no viola- tion of copy right of the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed an appca-1 in the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the decree dismissing the appellant's ff suit. The counsel for the appe11ant contended ( 1) that the principles enunicated and the legal inference drawn by the courts Oelo\\-' are against the settled legal principles laid down by the courts in England, America and India (2) the two .. ·. R. G. ANAND V, DELUX FILMS 219 coufts have not fully understood the imports of the violation of copy-righ~ parti~ -cularly when the similarities between the play and the film are so close that would lead to the irresistible inference and unmistakable impression that the film is nothing but an imitation of the play. The counsel for the respondents submitted ( 1) that the two courts below haive applied the law correctly. (2) This Hon'ble Court may not enter into the merits in view of the concurrent findings of fact given by the two courts. (3) Even on the facts found it is manifest that there. is a vast difference both in the spirit and the contents between the play and the film. Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD: (a) In order to appreciate the argument of the parties the court dis· cussed the law on the subject. At tt1e time ¥-'hen the cause of action arose in the present suit, the Indian Parliament had not made any Jaw govemiiig copY· right violation and therefore the court relied on the old law passed by the British P&rliament viz .. the Copyright Act of 1911. S. I sub-sec. (2)(d) defines copy- right as including in the case of a literary, dramatic or musk:al work, to make any record, performed roll, cinematograph
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.