Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 107

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
Academy Of General Edu., Manipal & Another
Versus
B. Malini Mallya
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2008 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15612 of 2008]
Decided On: 23-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Udita Singh, Lakshmi Raman Singh & Pallavi Mohan Advocates For the Respondent:G.V. Chandrashekhar, N.K. Verma & Anjana Chandrashekhar Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
‘Performance of dance’ would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’
While passing a decree for permanent injunction Courts would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Headnote:(a) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 2(h) – Broadly speaking, a dramatic work may also come within the purview of literary work being a part of dramatic literature – However ‘performance of dance’ would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’ – Covered by clause 12 of the Will of Dr. Karanth – Respondent acquiring copyright in respect of seven Yakshagana Prasangas as also in respect of Yakshagana dramatic or theatrical form as a residuary legatee in terms of clause 12 of the Will dated 18.6.1994. (Para 13, 14, 15)
       (b) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 63 – Decree for injunction being equitable relief, courts while passing a decree for permanent injunction would avoid multiplicity of proceedings considering statutory provisions governing the same – High Court while modifying judgment and decree of trial court directed that if the appellants desire to stage any of the seven Yakshagana prasangas in the manner and form as conceived in all respects they can do so only in accordance with the provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957 – High Court ought to mention section 52(1) (a)(i)(l). (Para 17, 18, 20)
       (1978) 4 SCC 118; (2008) 1 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       `Yakshagana is a form of ballet dance. It has its own heritage. Dr. Kota Shivarama Karanth a Director of the appellant-institute developed a new form of `Yakshagana.
       On or about 18.6.1994, he executed a Will in favour of the respondent. Dr. Karanth expired on 9.12.1997.
       Yakshagana Ballet dance as developed by Dr. Karanth was performed in New Delhi on or about 18.9.2001.
       Respondent filed a suit for declaration, injunction and damages alleging violation of the copyright in respect of the said dance vested in her in terms of the said Will.
       She claimed copyright in respect of `literary and artistic works in her favour in terms of clauses 11 and 12 of the said Will dated 18.6.1994.
       The District Judge decreed the said suit.
       Appellants preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court which was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be faulted. However it needs little modification.
       Result:
       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. `Yakshagana is a form of ballet dance. It has its own heritage. Indisputably, Dr. Kota Shivarama Karanth (for short, "Dr. Karanth"), a Jnanapeeth awardee, who was a Novelist, Play Writer, Essayist, Encyclopediationist, Cultural Anthropologist, Artist, Writer of Science, Environmentalist. He developed a new form of `Yakshagana. He was a Director of the appellant - institute. On or about 18.6.1994, he executed a Will in favour of the respondent. Dr. Karanth expired on 9.12.1997. Yakshagana Ballet dance as developed by Dr. Karanth was performed in New Delhi on or about 18.9.2001. Respondent filed a suit for declaration, injunction and damages alleging violation of the copyright in respect of the said dance vested in her in terms of the said Will stating that Dr. Karanth developed a new distinctive dance, drama troop or theatrical system which was named by him as `Yaksha Ranga which in his own words mean "creative extension of traditional Yakshagana" and, thus, the appellants infringed the copyright thereof by performing the same at New Delhi without obtaining her prior permission. It was stated that Dr. Karanth had composed seven verses or prasangas for staging Yaksharanga Ballet apart from bringing in changes in the traditional form thereof on its relevant aspects, namely, Raga, Tala, Scenic arrangement, Costumes etc. These prasangas are: (i) Bhishma Vijaya; (ii) Nala Damayanthi; (iii) Kanakangi or Kanakangi Kalyana; (iv) Abhimanyu or Abhimanyu Vada; (v) Chitrangadha or Babruvahana Kalaga; (vi) Panchavati; and (vii) Ganga Charitha.

3. Plaintiff - respondent admittedly claimed copyright in respect of `literary and artistic works in her favour in terms of clauses 11 and 12 of the said Will dated 18.6.1994, which read as under:

"11. Since I left the house `suhasa I have been living in a specially built house "Manasa" of Smt. Malini Mallya, who has built it with borrowed money at her cost. She had joined my service as Copyist and later, she secured an employment in Life Insurance Corporation of India. Ever since 1974 till now in my old age she has been serving me with exemplary devotion and sincerity. And in this occasion I must also acknowledge with gratitude that she diligently cared and nursed my wife Leela Karanth during her prolonged illness till her last day. And she has cared and looked after me also during my illness which at times had been quite serious, enfeebling me for long period. In recognition of her devotion and sincere affection towards me in 1986 I have dedicated one of my novels namely, "Antida Aparanji" to her. I have also placed on record her invaluable services to me in my Memoirs, "Hunchu Mansina Hathu Mukhagalu" 1991 Edition. In my opinion, very long enduring and a signal service she has done to me and to my literary works is, in writing a bibliography of all my books- a highly meritorious and scholarly work involving so much of pains taking research, that it has been acclaimed and rated as the first of its kind in Kannada and highly appreciated by Critics and Scholars. Apart from this, she has collected and edited all my stray writings from 1924 onwards upto date in eight Sumptuous volumes which are being published by Mangalore University. This work also has brought her deserving fame and appreciation of Scholars. Such painstaking service in this direction has brought to light several of my hitherto untraced, forgotten and unknown writings and thereby giving them extended or renewed lease of life. For all these services, I hereby declare that after my death copyrights in respect of all my literary works shall vest with Smt. Malini Mallya and she alone shall be entitled to receive royalties of all my books and she shall be entitled to print, publish and republish and market the same. Whatever she may earn thereby shall be her exclusive income and property. No one else shall have any right or claims for the same.

12. From time to time I have distributed among my c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 107

IMPORTANT POINT‘Performance of dance’ would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’While passing a decree for permanent injunction Courts would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
‘Performance of dance’ would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’
While passing a decree for permanent injunction Courts would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.