Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 218

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MUTRTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.**
R G. Anand, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Delux Films and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1968
Decided on 18-8-1978.
Advocate Appeared

Mr. S. N. Andley, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Mahinder Narain and Rameshwar Nath Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Appellant; Mr. Hardyal Hardy Sr. Advocate (M/s. H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff, Advocates with him), for Respondents 1 & 2.

Advocates:
H.S.PARIHAR, HARDYAL HARDY, I.M.SHROFF, Mahinder Narain, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Play was re-staged - Election - Having heard counsel for parties court felt that as case is one of first impression and needs to be decided by this Court should enter into merits on basis of facts found and inferences drawn by High Court and District Judge - It is true that both District Judge and High Court have relied upon some well established principles to determine whether or not in particular case violation of copyright has taken place but counsel for appellant has challenged validity principles enunciated by High Court - Held, In attempt to show that he is not guilty of infringement of copyright it is always possible for person intending to take advantage of intellectual effort and labors of another to so develop his own product that it covers wider field than area included within scope of earlier product and in common area covered by two productions to introduce changes in order to disguise attempt at plagiarism - If reappraisal of facts in present case had been open in this Court not sure that court would not have differed from view taken on facts by High Court but as matter stand trial Court as well as High Court have concurred in finding that such similarities as exist between stage play Hum Hindustani and film "New Delhi" do not make out case of infringement - Dissimilarities in their opinionate so material that it is not possible to say that appellants copyright has been infringed - This court is extremely reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by Courts below and for that reason court would allow judgment appeal to stand - In another and perhaps clearer case it may be necessary for this court to interfere and remove impression which may have gained ground that copyright belonging to an author can be readily infringed by making immaterial changes introducing insubstantial differences and enlarging scope of original theme so that veil of apparent dissimilarity is thrown around work now produced - Court will look strictly at not only blatant examples of copying but also at reprehensible attempts at colorable imitation - Appeal dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the District Judge and Delhi High Court that the film "New Delhi" did not infringe the copyright of the play "Hum Hindustani" (!) [1000179960062]. - The central theme of both works is provincialism, but copyright does not protect ideas, themes, or subject matter, only the form, manner, arrangement, and expression (!) (!) [1000179960044]. - Similarities between the play and film are trivial and incidental, arising from the common theme, while dissimilarities are material, including additional themes of casteism and dowry in the film (!) (!) [1000179960056]. - Key test for infringement: whether a spectator, after viewing both, gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work is a copy of the original (!) [1000179960045]. - The film expands the scope with new elements like housing discrimination, multiple families, and different plot developments, making it a distinct work [1000179960052][1000179960053]. - Courts below correctly applied principles; Supreme Court reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact [1000179960010][1000179960062]. - Plaintiff owned copyright in the play, but no substantial or material copying proven [1000179960010] (!) . - Defendant admitted hearing the play but developed a different story, characterization, and climaxes [1000179960059][1000179960060].

What is required to determine infringement of copyright in a dramatic work?

What are the tests to ascertain whether a film infringes the copyright of a stage play?

JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 23rd May, 1967 affirming the decree of the District Judge, Delhi and dismissing the plaintiffs suit for damages against the defendants on the ground that they had violated the copyrighted work of the plaintiff which was a drama called Hum Hindustani.

2. The facts have been succinctly stated by the District Judge in his judgment and summarised by the High Court, and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. We would, however, like to give a brief resume of some of the striking facts in the case which may be germane for the purpose of deciding the important issues involved in this appeal. We might mention here that the High Court as also the District Judge negatived the plaintiffs claim and prima facie the appeal appears to be concluded by finding of fact, but it was rightly argued by Mr. Andley appearing for the appellant that the principles of violation of copyright in the instant appeal have to be applied on the facts found and the inferences from proved facts drawn by the High Court which is doubtless a question of law and more particularly as there is no clear authority of this Court on the subject, we should be persuaded to go into this question without entering into findings of facts. Having heard counsel for the parties, we felt that as the case is one of first impression and needs to be decided by this Court, we should enter into the merits on the basis of the facts found and inferences drawn by the High Court and the District Judge. It is true that both the District Judge and the High Court have relied upon some well established principles to determine whether or not in a particular case a violation of copyright has taken place, but learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the validity of the principles enunciated by the High Court.

3. The plaintiff is an architect by profession and is also a playwright, Dramatist and producer of stage plays. Even before Hum Hindustani the plaintiff had written and produced a number of other plays like Des Hamara, Azadi and Election which were staged in Delhi. The subject-matter of the appeal, however, is the play entitled Hum Hindustani. According to the plaintiff, this play was written by him in Hindi in the year 1953 and was enacted by him for the first time on 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th February, 1954 at Wavell Theatre, New Delhi under the auspices of the Indian National Theatre. The play proved to be very popular and received great approbation from the Press and the public as a result of which the play was re-staged in February and September, 1954 and also in 1955 and 1956 at Calcutta. In support of his case the plaintiff has referred to a number of comments appearing in the Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Times of India and other papers.

4. Encouraged by the success and popularity of the aforesaid play the plaintiff tried to consider the possibility of filming it. In November, 1954 the plaintiff received a letter dated 19th November, 1954 from the second defendant Mr. Mohan Sehgal wherein the defendant informed the plaintiff that he was supplied with a synopsis of the play by one Mr. Balwant Gargi a common friend of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant had requested the plaintiff to supply a copy of the play so that the defendant may consider the desirability of making a film on it. The plaintiff, however, by his letter dated 30th November, 1954 informed the defendant that as the play had been selected out of 17 Hindi plays for National Drama Festival and would be staged on 11th Dec. 1954, the defendant should take the trouble of visiting Delhi and seeing the play himself in order to examine the potentialities of making a film, and at that time the matter could be discussed by the defendant with the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiffs case, however, is that some time about January, 1955 the second and the third defendants came to Delh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document