MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

IN THE
HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Case Concerning

THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

MANNU BHANDARI

(Appellant)
Vs

KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT LTD.

(Respondents)

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOMDENTS

SHARAD MISHRA

ROLL NO. 118

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________1 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................3

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................4

o BOOKS.......................................................................................................4
o ACTS, LEGISLATIONS AND STATUTES.........................................................4

 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS............................................................................................5

 ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................6

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................7

 WRITTEN PLEADINGS…………………………………………………….........7

 PRAYER...............................................................................................................12

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________2 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R. All India Reporter.
Addl. Additional
Anr. Another
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
Bom. Bombay
CO. Company
C.J. Chief Justice
Dy. Deputy

ed. Editor(s)
Edn. Edition

Etc. et cetra
Govt. Government
H.C. High Court
Hon’ble Honorable

I.L.R. Indian Law Reporter

J. Justice
Ltd. Limited
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
Mad. Madras
Ori Orissa

Ors. Others
p. Page
Para. Paragraph
Rep. Report(s)
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Review

Sec. Section
Spl. Special

Supp. Supplement
UOI Union of India
v. versus
Vol. Volume
www World Wide Web

& And

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________3 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

BOOKS:

1. LIONEL BENTLY & BRAD SHERMAN, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, OXFORD.

2. B.L. WADEHRA, LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, UNIVERSAL LAW

PUBLISHING CO.

3. V.K. AHUJA, LAWS LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LEXIX NEXIS

BUTTERWORTH.

ACTS / STATUTES / LEGISLATIONS:

1. THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

2. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1872

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________4 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Appellant, Mannu Bhandari being the Author of the novel ‘Aap ka Bunty’, had
copyright in the work which included, inter alia, the exclusive right to make a
cinematograph film in respect of his work.
2. In April 1983, she assigned her cinematograph rights in the novel to the Respondents i.e.
Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. For a consideration of Rs 15,000/-.
3. In the contract entered between the two parties it was agreed that the author would allow
to script the writer who was directing the film to make certain modifications in the novel
to make it suitable for a successful film-version of it.
4. It was also stated in the contract that proper publicity will be given to the author of the
said story in all credits (Commercial and other publicity).
5. Different started arising between the parties from the very beginning. Appellant/ Plaintiff
claimed that there was a breach of contract as modifications were made by the
Defendants without the permission of the Plaintiff or without being discussed with him.
6. Appellant/ Plaintiff also disputed the fact that the Respondents/defendants have not
informed the Appellant/ Plaintiff about the screening of the film.
7. Also the modifications made by the Defendants came into knowledge of the Plaintiff
when she forcefully went Delhi to see the screening of the film.
8. The Appellant/ Plaintiff filed a petition in the Trial Court to grant an ad-interim restraint
order.
9. The petition was dismissed by the Trial Court.
10. Hence the necessity of this Appeal made to the High Court of Delhi.

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________5 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

ISSUE RAISED

I. WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS HAVE ALTERED THE WORK OF THE PLAINTIFF

AS MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 57(1) (A) OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957?

II. WHETHER THESE ALTERATIONS LEAD TO THE LOSS OF REPUTATION OF THE

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AS COVERED UNDER SECTION 57(1) (B) OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT,

1957?

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________6 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT MADE ANY ALTERATIONS WHICH

BREACHES THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT’S RIGHT GRANTED TO HER UNDER

SECTION 57(1) (A), COVERED AS SPECIAL RIGHTS OF THE AUTHOR.

In the Film ‘Samay ki Dhara’, the respondents/defendants have not made any
alteration/ modifications in the film which is in derogation of the novel written by the
appellant/plaintiff. And hence, the modifications made were of the order that have not
led to mutilation and distortion in the actual essence given under Section 57 of the
Copyright Act 1957, which was to be conveyed to its viewers.

II. THE ALTERATIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS WILL NOT LEAD TO

THE LOSS OF HONOUR AND REPUTATION OF THE AUTHOR

(APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF) AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 57(1) (B) OF THE

COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957.

It is wholly accepted by the respondents that the Author (Plaintiff) is a renowned

writer and has earned a lot of name in the field of literature. But the changes or
alterations or modifications that were made by the respondents/defendants have not in
any sense distorted and mutilated the essence of the theme that was portrayed by the
Author. And the respondents/defendants being the director of the film has full right to
modify or alter certain things which is in the best interest of the film and of the author
as well, and this right has also been granted to the respondents/defendants through the
agreement entered between both the parties. Thus, this will not affect her reputation
among the readers of her work, which appreciates her work.

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________7 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

I. DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT MADE ANY ALTERATIONS WHICH BREACHES

THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT’S RIGHT GRANTED TO HER UNDER SECTION 57(1) (A),

COVERED AS SPECIAL RIGHTS OF THE AUTHOR.

Section 57(1)1 of the Copyrights Act grants special rights to the Author with regards to his work.
It states that in the cases of mutilation, distortion or modification without the permission of the
Author will give the power to him to restrain or claim damages from the assignee of his works.
In the present case, it was contended by the appellant/plaintiff that the respondents have
infringed the rights of the Author provided under Section 57 of the Copyrights Act 1957,2 by
making alterations with the original work of the author. It is humbly submitted that the
respondents have made all the alterations in accordance with the terms of the contract 3 entered
between both the parties which is not in the essence led to the mutilation or distortion of the
author’s original work.

The Black’s Law Dictionary has defined the word modification as “A change to something; an
alteration” and the word Mutilation as “The act or an instance of rendering a document legally
ineffective by subtracting or altering — but not completely destroying — an essential part
through cutting, tearing, burning, or erasing.”4

It is clear from the above definition that the mutilation or distortion means the modifications
made by subtracting, altering, removing or tearing the essential portion of the author’s work. But
in the present case the respondents has just altered the some part of author’s work which is not so

1
Section 57(1), of The Indian Copyrights Act 1957 (Herein after referred to as the Act) states, “Independently of the
author's copyright, and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a
work shall have the right to claim the authorship of the work as well as the right to restrain, or claim damages in
respect of : (a) any distortion, mutilation or other modifications of the said work ; or
(b) any other action in relation to the said work which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.
2
57. (1) Author's special rights. Independently of the author' s copyright, and even after the assignment either
wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim the authorship of the work
as well as the right to restrain, or claim damages in respect of,- (a) any distortion, mutilation or other modification
of the said work; or (b) any other action in relation to the said work which would be prejudicial to his honour or
reputation.
(2) The right conferred upon an author of a work by sub- section (1), other than the right to claim authorship of the
work, may be exercised by the legal representatives of the author:
3
Refer Annexure 1
4
Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________8 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

essential and that is required to make the movie better and successful. And modifications
actually made are made after discussions with the author and she had agreed to the said
modifications. Hence the modifications made by the respondents have not distorted or mutilated
the original work of the plaintiff.

In the present case, as per the clause (b) of the contract entered between the parties which states
as follows:

“(B) That Shri Sirsir Mishra, the Director of the aforesaid film, is writing the screen-play of
our production No. 1 and that you have agreed to allow him to make certain modifications in
your novel for the film version, in discussion with you to make it suitable for a successful film.”

In the present case it is prima facie that the plaintiff/appellant has authorized the
defendants/respondents for modifying certain portion of the film which is not in derogation with
the original work and moral rights of the author.

It is humbly submitted that it is clearly evident from the above Clause that the respondents were
authorized to make the changes or any modifications taken that the changes were required to be
made by the prior permission of the Author and for making the film successful. And
modifications actually made are made after discussions with the author and she had agreed to the
said modifications. Hence the modification or alteration made in the present case will not lead to
the infringement ‘Special rights’ provided under S. 57 of the Copyrights Act, 1957. Also the
modifications that were made were not of the essential part of the author’s work and hence it is
not diluting the theme of the novel.

Thus, it is contended that in the present case the changes or modifications made is in accordance
with the terms of the contract and this will not lead to the ‘mutilation and distortion’ of the
original work of the Plaintiff.

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________9 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

II. THE ALTERATIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS WILL NOT LEAD TO THE
LOSS OF HONOUR AND REPUTATION OF THE AUTHOR (APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF) AS

CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 57(1) (B) OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957.

It is humbly submitted that the Plaintiff had prima facie authorised the defendants to make
necessary changes in order to make a successful film based on the novel. And modifications
actually made are made after discussions with the author and she had agreed to the said
modifications. In the present case, prima facie the film is not at all going to harm the reputation
of the plaintiff in any manner. The plaintiff's reputation can be harmed in the eyes of those only
who have read her novel and seen the film also. Those who have read her novel and seen the film
may change their views about the producer, director of the film but not about the Plaintiff.

It is humbly submitted that the respondents agrees with the fact that the appellant has earned a
great reputation in Hindi Literature as an Author. She has written several novels, plays and
stories and has acquired a special status in the Indian Literary world for her sensitive treatment of
contemporary sociological and psychological things. The novel "Aap Ka Bunty" is recognised
by the public nationally and internationally for the script, theme, dialogue, substance and the
central idea brought about by the writer and is liked by the public.

In the present case the changes or alterations or modifications that were made by the
respondents/defendants have not in any sense distorted and mutilated the essence of the theme
that was portrayed by the Author. And the respondents/defendants being the director of the film
has full right to modify or alter certain things which is in the best interest of the film and of the
author as well, and this right has also been granted to the respondents/defendants through the
agreement entered between both the parties. Thus, this will not affect her reputation among the
readers of her work, which appreciates her work. Also the modifications actually made are made
after discussions with the author and she had agreed to the said modifications. And she has
approved the modifications and she is the best judge of her reputation.

Hence it is humbly submitted that the modifications made was in the best interest of the movie
and also the modifications will not infringe the ‘special rights’ provided under S. 57 of the Act.
And hence it will also not affect the reputation of the author in the public at large.

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________10 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that these changes will not mutilate and distort the work of the
Author, and will also not lead to the loss of reputation of the Author as contemplated under
Section 57 of the Act.

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________11 | P a g e

 MANNU BHANDARI V. KALA VIKAS PICTURES PVT. LTD.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed by the counsel on behalf of the Appellant, before the Hon’ble Court to:

1. To dismiss the appeal and

2. And to not pass an ad-interim restrain order ; and

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

At: Delhi Counsel on behalf of Respondents

Date: 09.04.2013 Sharad Mishra

_________________________Memorandum for Respondents______________________12 | P a g e