Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. Patel, J.
Narendra Mohan Singh alias Mr. Sanjay Singh & Ors. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Ketan Mehta & Ors. - Defendants
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2071 OF 2015 IN SUIT (L) NO. 778 OF 2015
Decided On : 20.8.2015
MANJHI - THE MOUNTAIN MAN - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 14, 17, 51, 55, 62, 64 - INJUNCTION - CONFIDENCE - BREACH OF - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT - SUIT FOR - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - DELAY - LACHES - ESTOPPEL - WAIVER - ACQUIESCENCE - ABANDONMENT - SPRINGBOARD DOCTRINE - FILM - PRODUCTION OF - RESTRAINT ON - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 14, 17, 51, 55, 62, 64 - INJUNCTION - CONFIDENCE - BREACH OF - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT - SUIT FOR - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - DELAY - LACHES - ESTOPPEL - WAIVER - ACQUIESCENCE - ABANDONMENT - SPRINGBOARD DOCTRINE - FILM - PRODUCTION OF - RESTRAINT ON.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, a writer-director and a proprietor of a firm engaged in the production and distribution of feature films, filed a suit for injunction against the release of a film titled "Manjhi – The Mountain Man", directed by the 1st Defendant, Ketan Mehta. The Plaintiffs claimed infringement of a copyright in the 2nd Plaintiff’s script and a breach of confidence. They alleged that they shared an early “basic” screenplay of the film with the 3rd Defendant, Mahendra Jakhar, who is today credited with having written the script on which the film is based. The Defendants denied the allegations and claimed that there was no communication in confidence of the nature suggested by the Plaintiffs at all.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Plaintiffs had not made out a sufficient prima facie case for the grant of an injunction or that the legal tests to establish a breach of confidence or infringement of copyright were satisfied. The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ script was extremely rudimentary and that the 3rd Defendant’s screenplay was a much more substantial work. The Court also found that the film itself was not a shot-by-shot adaptation of the 3rd Defendant’s script and that it differed from it markedly. The Court further found that there was a gross and unexplained delay on the part of the Plaintiffs in bringing the suit, and that such delay, coupled with what the Court described as a deliberate attempt at misdirection, disentitled the Plaintiffs to the relief of injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs had made out a sufficient prima facie case for the grant of an injunction? 2. Whether the legal tests to establish a breach of confidence or infringement of copyright were satisfied? 3. Whether there was a gross and unexplained delay on the part of the Plaintiffs in bringing the suit? 4. Whether such delay, coupled with what the Court described as a deliberate attempt at misdirection, disentitled the Plaintiffs to the relief of injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Plaintiffs had not made out a sufficient prima facie case for the grant of an injunction or that the legal tests to establish a breach of confidence or infringement of copyright were satisfied. 2. The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ script was extremely rudimentary and that the 3rd Defendant’s screenplay was a much more substantial work. 3. The Court also found that the film itself was not a shot-by-shot adaptation of the 3rd Defendant’s script and that it differed from it markedly. 4. The Court further found that there was a gross and unexplained delay on the part of the Plaintiffs in bringing the suit, and that such delay, coupled with what the Court described as a deliberate attempt at misdirection, disentitled the Plaintiffs to the relief of injunction.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and declined to grant an injunction restraining the release of the film.
G.S. Patel, J.
1. This is an application for an injunction against the release on Friday, 21st August 2015 of a film “Manjhi – The Mountain Man” directed by the 1st Defendant, Ketan Mehta. The Plaintiffs’ claim infringement of a copyright in the 2nd Plaintiff’s script and a breach of confidence. They say they shared an early “basic” screenplay of the film with the 3rd Defendant, Mahendra Jakhar, who is today credited with having written the script on which the film is based. At this stage I am required to consider whether there is a prima facie case made out on these grounds as between the film and the Plaintiffs’ script, not between the two rival scripts of the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant.
2. The Suit was filed on 1st August 2015. An application for ad-interim relief was moved on 6th August 2015. Mr. Justice Kathawalla, to whom the matter was then assigned, directed the filing of Affidavits in Reply and Rejoinder and posted the matter for hearing and final disposal on 19th August 2015. The sitting assignments changed with effect from that day. By consent, therefore, on the matter being mentioned on 17th August 2015, I took up the Notice of Motion on 19th August 2015. Having regard to the imminent release of the film, the Motion was heard finally. By this time, several Affidavits in Reply and Rejoinder had been filed. Although the Defendants claim that new material had been introduced in the Affidavits in Rejoinder, time did not permit an adjournment for further returns to deal with these. The Defendants agreed to proceed on denials.
3. In the meantime, late in the evening on 17th August 2015, after the matter was mentioned for 19th August 2015 (the Court being closed on the intervening day), I requested the Advocates for the Plaintiffs and the Advocates for Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 (the producers of the film) to make available to me a copy of each of the two scripts/screenplays as also a copy of the film itself. These were readily provided. I saw the film privately. I also went through both scripts/screenplays.
4. The film is based on and inspired by the life of Dashrath Manjhi, a poor labourer from Gehlor Village near Gaya in Bihar, a man of undoubtedly modest means and circumstances, very much of the ‘poorest of the poor’, but one who single-handedly achieved a Herculean feat. He is widely acknowledged to have spent 22 years in single-handedly carving a road between the Atri and Vazirganj blocks of Gaya town. In the process, a distance of about 40 to 70 kilometres going around the mountain range was considerably shortened. Ultimately, the road that Dashrath Manjhi hewed from the rock was 360 feet long, 25 feet deep and in places about 30 feet wide. One of the acknowledged facts about Dashrath Manjhi’s life was that his wife suffered an accident on this mountain. Medical care was not immediately available: the nearest health care facility lay on the other side of the mountain. This is said to have spurred or moved Manjhi to his self-appointed task: to remove the obstacle the mountain presented. Dashrath Manjhi came to be known in popular media and even in Government issued publications as “the Mountain Man”. He died on 17th August 2007. The film and the scripts all claimed to be inspired by his life and his labours.
5. The 2nd Plaintiff, Manish Jha, is a writer-director. He has to his credit some award-winning films, including one called Matrubhumi, A Nation Without Women (2003), about female infanticide. That work was well received in several international film festivals. He is also the director of a short film entitled “A Very Very Silent Film”. This won the Jury Price for the best short film at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival. The 1st Plaintiff is a Proprietor of a firm engaged in the production and distribution of feature films.
6. The 1st Defendant, Ketan Mehta is a well-known figure in the Indian film industry. He has made several feature films, documentaries and television serials. His very first film, Bhavni Bhav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
