SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Cal) 264

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AJOY NATH RAY
Jogendra Nath Sen – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dilip Dutt and P.K. Ghosh, for Petitioners; Dipak Sengupta, S.K. Layek and Debkumar Chatterjee, for Respondents.

Judgement

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.:- Notwithstanding my appreciation of and concurring in the judgment of my learned brother Ray, J., appearing hereinafter, I have thought it advisable to add a few words for more reasons than one. One reason is the importance of the question, on which our attention could not be drawn to any reported decision of this Court. Another reason is that at some places the precision of the observations of Ray, J., has almost reached the state of aphorism (Sutra), which may require some amount of amplification (Vasva), so that persons not trained in law, but more concerned with copy-right, like authors and publishers, may know where they are.

2. The work in question, being a book on Anatomy, is a literary work within the meaning of Clauses(y) and (o) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter Act for short). The author of the work is therefore the first owner of the Copyright therein under Section 17 and when published in his lifetime, his right shall subsist until fifty years after his death under Section 22.

3. Under Section 14 of the Act, Copyright in a literary work, includes, among others, the exclusive right to publish the work. But the author, a








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top