Ramaprasada Rao, CJ.-O.S.A. No. 75 of 1978 is by the first defendant in C.S. No. 214 of 1978 on the file of the Original Side of this Court and O.S.A.No. 76 of 1978 is by the second defendant in the said suit. These two appeals are directed against the order of Nainar Sundaram, J., in Application No. 2290 of 1978 on the Original Side. The plaintiffs claiming a copyright in the story titled ‘MADANOTSAVAM’ sought for an injunction restraining the appellants-defendants and or their authorised representatives from infringing the above copyright of the plaintiffs-respondents in any manner whatsoever and in particular, for an injunction restraining the defendants from producing or continuing to produce any picture in Telugu, based on the story of MADANOTSAVAM but under the title ‘AMAR PREM’. Such a prayer was asked for by the plaintiffs in Application No. 1946 of 1978. The learned Judge in a well considered order dated 17th May, 1978, instead of granting on injunction as prayed for, made certain directions, the operative portion of which said order reads as follows:

“I direct the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of II Assistant Registrar, High Court; Madras on or before 23rd May, 1978 failing which the interim injunction granted by order dated 3rd May, 1978 will stand made absolute. If however, the bank guarantee as directed above is furnished, the interim injunction granted as stated above, will stand dissolved to the extent of the exploitation of the story ‘Madanotsavam’ for picturing the Telugu version by the second defendant and in other respects, the interim injunction granted will continue” .

An appeal against the said grant by the defendants to the appellate Court was unsuccessful. On the strength of the order passed by the learned Judge in. Application No. 1946 of 1978 the defendants completed the Telugu version of the picture ‘AMAR PREM’ and distributed the prints thereof to various distributors in the State for the release of the said picture. In fact, a wide publicity was made about the said release of the picture through defendants-distributors under which the film ‘AMAR PREM’ was to be released on 29th June,, 1978, and thereafter coming to know of the said release of the picture in the manner stated above, the plaintiffs once again approached this Court for an injunction restraining the appellants-defendants or their agents from releasing the picture AMAR PREM as scheduled by them. Nainar Sundaram, J., passed orders once again after hearing the parties. He was of the view that the order passed by him in Application No. 1946 of 1978 enabled the appellants to picturise the film and did not authorise them to release it. He was emphatically of the view that when he used the expression exploitation of the story of MADANOTSAVAM for picturing the Telugu version by the second defendant, it was not possible to give extended meaning to his opinion by stating that the word ‘picturising’ would also mean releasing and exhibiting the film. In so many words, the learned Judge said that that was not his intention. Therefore, he granted the injunction as prayed for in Application No. 2290 of 1978. Even at the time of passing of the above order Mr. N. C. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellants, who appeared before the learned Judge and who is before us, made it clear that the prints of the Telugu picture had already been despatched to the distributors and that the impression gained by the appellants was that by reason of the order in Application No. 1946 of 1978 they could exhibit a completed picture and as wide publicity had been given about the exhibition of the picture, the grant of interim injunction as was done by the learned Judge by way of clarification of his original order would cause considerable prejudice to the parties including strangers, and that it would not be in the public interest to grant an absolute injunction but it would be germane if alternative directions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document