1957 (3) TMI 75 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of copyright in notes and head-notes.
2. Alleged infringement of copyright by the defendant.
3. Application for a temporary injunction.
4. Applicability of the Indian Copyright Act of 1914 post-Constitution.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Claim of Copyright in Notes and Head-notes:
The plaintiff, All India Reporter Limited, asserted that the notes and head-notes published in their law journal constituted original literary work and thus were protected by copyright. They argued that substantial effort and expense were involved in employing lawyer editors to prepare these notes, making them original works. The court acknowledged that a genuine abridgment could be considered an original work, as established in English and Indian case law, such as Sweet v. Benning and Govindan v. Gopalkrishna. The court noted that the head-notes were not verbatim extracts from judgments but required human ingenuity and intellect, thus qualifying for copyright protection.

2. Alleged Infringement of Copyright by the Defendant:
The defendant, editor of Madras Weekly Notes, published a digest allegedly containing pirated notes and head-notes from the plaintiff's "NUC" (Notes of Unreported Cases). The defendant denied the infringement, claiming the notes were original abridgments and that there was no copyright in the head-notes since they were derived from public domain judgments. The court found that the defendant's notes were substantially similar to the plaintiff's, often copying not only the ideas but also the expression and form. This was deemed prima facie evidence of piracy, as illustrated by the near-verbatim copying of specific head-notes.

3. Application for a Temporary Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the printing, publication, and sale of the defendant's digest. The court reiterated the principles for granting a temporary injunction: a bona fide contention, a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience. The court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement and determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's argument for a limited injunction, noting practical difficulties in removing infringing material from already printed and sold copies. The court held that the plaintiff would suffer more inconvenience if the injunction were not granted.

4. Applicability of the Indian Copyright Act of 1914 Post-Constitution:
The defendant argued that the Indian Copyright Act of 1914, which applied the English Copyright Act of 1911, ceased to be operative post-Constitution. The court dismissed this argument, citing Article 372 of the Constitution, which continues all existing laws. The court distinguished the present case from Menon's case, where the Fugitive Offenders Act was deemed inapplicable post-Independence. The court held that the Copyright Act's application to "His Majesty's Dominions" was not repugnant to India's sovereign status and thus remained in force.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the temporary injunction granted by the trial court, finding substantial evidence of copyright infringement by the defendant. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and leave to appeal was refused.