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

1985 Supreme(Del) 423

G.C.JAIN
SALEK CHAND JAIN – Appellant
Versus
VINESH CHAND SETH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GOVIND MUKHOTY, J.K.SETH, Rajinder Mathur, V.B.ANDLEY

S. B. Wad, J.

( 1 ) HOW far law protects creative aesthetic expression of an artist 7 Is the intellectual property of an artist governed by the game norms as commercial property ? Where does the freedom (of expression) of the autnor and, where does the Director begin ? What is the scope and width of section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? These are the questions raised in Mannu Bhandari s suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture samay Ki Dhara under assignment of filming rights of her novel aap Ka Bunty. Her complaint is of the multilation and distortion of the novel. She pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and exhibition. Although many authors complain of sueh distortions, few have sought judicial protection. Hence, there is no precedent of any law court to guide the film industry.

( 2 ) THE trial court has refused an ad-interim restraint order. The appeal is against this order.

( 3 ) AT the time of the bearing it was realised that apart from the verbal allegations made by the Plaintiff and the defendants, there was considerable common ground, which if properly explored, would brin































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