Messrs. Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan And Another., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an order by Maharajan, J. concerning a preliminary issue in a suit filed by the first respondent. The respondent claimed infringement of his copyright in a Tamil story titled “Nazhuval,” alleging that the appellant exploited a film “Iru Malargal” which was a reproduction of his story. The reliefs sought included a permanent injunction against the appellant and damages. A key issue settled was whether the plaintiff's suit was maintainable despite non-registration of his copyright in the story “Nazhuval.”

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957, registration is compulsory for acquiring copyright.

Without registration, there is no copyright and no cause of action for infringement.

Relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Mishra Bandhu Karyala v. S. Koshal, which held registration as a condition precedent to copyright subsistence.

Court’s Response to Arguments

The court examined the Copyright Act, 1957, and found no provision making registration a condition precedent to copyright subsistence or ownership.

Section 45 is an enabling provision allowing application for registration but does not mandate registration as compulsory.

Section 48 provides that registration is prima facie evidence of particulars entered, but does not affect subsistence of copyright itself.

The court respectfully disagreed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's contrary view, noting it as obiter and unsupported by the statutory language.

Supported the view that registration is optional and evidentiary in nature, referencing the decision in Satsang v. Kironchandra.

Section 16 confirms copyright is a statutory creation and must be established under the Act, but does not link subsistence to registration.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mishra Bandhu Karyala v. S. Koshal	Held that registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 is a condition precedent to acquiring copyright.	The court respectfully disagreed, holding the decision was not supported by the statutory language and was obiter.
Satsang v. Kironchandra	Supported the view that registration is optional and serves as prima facie evidence, not a condition for copyright subsistence.	The court relied on this precedent to support its conclusion that registration is not mandatory.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Mishra Bandhu Karyala v. S. Koshal

Held that registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 is a condition precedent to acquiring copyright.

The court respectfully disagreed, holding the decision was not supported by the statutory language and was obiter.

Satsang v. Kironchandra

Supported the view that registration is optional and serves as prima facie evidence, not a condition for copyright subsistence.

The court relied on this precedent to support its conclusion that registration is not mandatory.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed statutory analysis of the Copyright Act, 1957. It noted that:

Section 13 defines the categories of works in which copyright may subsist but does not mention registration as a requirement.

Section 14 defines "copyright" as an exclusive right created by the statute, subject to its provisions.

Section 15 and 16 clarify the scope and statutory nature of copyright but do not impose registration as a prerequisite.

Chapter X of the Act deals with registration, with Section 45 allowing application for registration and Section 48 providing that the register is prima facie evidence of particulars entered.

The court emphasized that registration under the Act serves evidentiary purposes and is not a sine qua non for the existence or ownership of copyright.

The court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Section 45 as implying compulsion, interpreting it as permissive rather than mandatory.

The court found no provision in the Act, either individually or collectively, to support the contention that copyright subsistence depends on registration.

Thus, the court concluded that copyright subsists independently of registration, and infringement claims can be maintained without prior registration.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court held that registration of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 is not a condition precedent to the subsistence of copyright or acquisition of ownership thereof. Registration is optional and serves only as prima facie evidence of particulars entered in the register. Consequently, a suit for infringement can be maintained even if the copyright is not registered.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s appeal fails, and the costs of the appeal are to abide the result of the suit. The opinion does not establish any new precedent beyond interpreting the statutory provisions regarding registration and copyright subsistence.

Messrs. Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan And Another.

(The Chief Justices)

1. This appeal comes before us from an order of Maharajan, J. on a preliminary issue in a suit brought by the first respondent for certain reliefs on an alleged infringement of his copyright in a tamil story “Nazhuval” written by him. He asked for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from exploiting a film ‘Iru Malargal’ which, according to the first respondent, was a reproduction of his story. In addition to the relief of injunction, he also asked for damages. An additional issue was settled to the effect—“Whether the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable for non-registration of his copyright in the story ‘Nazhuval’?”

2. It seems to us that the view of Maharajan, J. is correct. We have carefully looked into the Copyright Act, 1957, and nowhere in it do we find any justification for holding that registration is a sine quo non or a condition precedent to the subsistence of copyright or acquisition of ownership thereof or reliefs for infraction of copyright. Mishra Bandhu Karyala v. S. Koshal(1) took a contrary view but, with due respect, we are unable to agree with it. The Copyright Act, 1957, amended and consolidated the law relating to copyright. Chapter III relates to copyright. S. 13 lists out works in which copyright may subsist, as for instance, original, literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and records. Sub-S. (1) of S. 13 states in which cases copyright shall not subsist subject to exceptions. S. 14 is important which defines copyright. ‘Copyright’ means the exclusive right in one or other of the words specified in the Sub-Section. This is, of course, copyright by virtue of and subject to the provisions of the Act. S. 15 declares that no copyright shall subsist in any design registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. Sub-S. (2) of this Section deals with a particular design which is capable of being registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, but which has not been so registered. Such design shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his licence, by any other person. Then, we have S. 16 which makes it clear that there shall be no copyright except as provided in the Act. Copyright, therefore, is a creation of the statute. Might be that it originally subsisted under the common law. But, that has been replaced by the statute law, and copyright subsists as provided by the Copyright Act, 1957, and by virtue of and subject to its provisions. No person under S. 16 shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any work, whether published or unpublished, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act or of any other law for the time being in force. Chapter IV deals with ownership of copyright and the rights of the owner. Chapter V, with term of copyright, Chapter VI, with licences, Chapter VII, with performing rights societies and Chapter VIII, with rights of Broadcasting authorities. We have then Chapter IX dealing with international copyright. Registration of copyright is dealt with by Chapter X. It provides for the procedure for registration of copyright. A register shall be kept for that purpose and entries in the register shall be made of copyrights. A system of index should be maintained. Form and inspection of register are contemplated. S. 48 which seems to throw considerable light on the question we have to decide, is this:

“The Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein and documents purporting to be copies of any entries therein, or extracts therefrom certified by the Register of Copyrights and sealed with the seal of the Copy, right Office shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof of production of the original.”

Power is given to the Registrar of Copyrights by the next Section to amend or alter Register of Copyrights subject to the prescribed conditions. Any one disputing the register may apply under S. 45 to have his copyright registered. Chapter XI deals with infringement of copyright. The next Section deals with civil remedies. S. 53 is to the effect that, where copyright has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by the Act, be entitled to all remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right. Chapter XIII deals with offences. Chapter XIV, with appeals and Chapter XV, the final Chapter, with miscellaneous provisions. It may be seen from the provisions which we have just now noticed that the only effect of registration is what is stated in S. 48, to wit, that it shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered in the register. Hardly is there any indication in any of the provisions of the Act, read individually or as a whole, to suggest that registration is a condition precedent to subsistence of copyright or acquisition of ownership thereof.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on S. 45, in particular and contended that the provision, namely, that the author or publisher or the owner of copyright may make an application for registration, means that the registration is compulsory and that without registration there is no copyright and no infringement thereof can be complained against. He also places reliance on Mishra Bandhu Karyala v. S. Koshal , which, no doubt, supports his contention. In that case, the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed:

“The Indian Copyright Act, 1914, had nowhere made any provision for the registration of copyrights Under the Copyright Act, 1957, it appears that under Ss. 13 and 45, the registration of a book with the Registrar of Copyrights is a condition for acquiring copyright with respect to it. A plain reading of the several provisions of the Act leaves no doubt in our minds that a copyright in a book now is only secured if it is an original compilation and has been fully registered according to the provision of the 1957 Act.”

We fail to see anything in Ss. 13 and 45 to justify this view. S. 13 does not speak about registration. As we have already mentioned, it only lists out the works in which copyright may subsist. It also indicates works in which no copyright can exist unless certain conditions are satisfied. S. 45 is enabling section. Any one who is so minded, may apply for registration. S. 45 does not go further. The only effect of registration is that it serves as evidence of particulars entered in the register. Just as S. 48 lays down a rule of evidence, S. 45 does not qualify S. 13 or S. 14 or even S. 15 of the Act and makes registration as a condition for the subsistence of copyright or acquisition of ownership thereof. Maharajan, J. was of the view that the observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were obiter. Even so, the observations do deserve due weight; but, in our opinion, those observations are not justified by the language of Ss. 13 and 45 referred to. The view we are inclined to take that registration is but optional and provides a rule of evidence, is supported by Satsang v. Kironchandra(2).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant referred us to S. 16. As we have mentioned already, it merely says that no person shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any work, whether published or unpublished, otherwise than under and in accordance with the Act. This is merely to say that copyright is a creation of the statute. Unless the person who claims copyright can point out to S. 14 and then substantiate that he comes thereunder, he fails to establish copyright. That is all the effect of S. 16.

The appeal fails and is dismissed. Costs in the appeal will abide the result of the suit.

V.C.S

O.S App. No. 62 of 1971

Messrs. Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan And Another.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Court’s Response to Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Messrs. Manojah Cine Productions v. A. Sundaresan And Another.

Comments