In cases of copyright infringement, the grant of an injunction is not automatic and the court may consider substituted safeguards to preserve the rights of the parties, especially when the infringing work has already been completed and its release would not cause irreparable harm to the copyright holder.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, C. J. :- 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 Nainar Sundaram J. in Appln. No. 2290 of 1978 in 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 Madanotsavam but under the title 'Amar Prem'. Such a prayer was asked for by the plaintiffs in Appln. No. 1946 of 1978. The learned Judge in a well-considered order dated 17-5-1978, instead of granting an 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 Rupees 50,000/- to the satisfaction of II Asst. Registrar, High Court, Madras, on or before 23-5-1978, failing which the Interim injunction granted by order dated 3-5-1978, 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".

2. 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 Appn. 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 defendant's distributors under which the film 'Amar Prem' was to be released on 29-6-1978, 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 Appn. 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 Madanotsavem for picturing 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 Appln. 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 Appn. No. 1946 of 1978, they could exhibit a completed picture and as wide publicity has 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 public interest to rent an absolute injunction but it would be germane if alternative directions are given to sufficiently safeguard and protect t