Mannu Bhandari v.

Kala Vikas Motion

Pictures Ltd
Case Analysis

Submitted by: Nalin Khanna

Enrollment No.: 03151103517
SECTION : BBALLB A
SUBMITTED TO :MS. BEDAPRIYA LAHIRI
ASST. PROFESSOR, DME
 INTRODUCTION

Mannu Bhandari VS Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd. (AIR 1987

DELHI 13) is the first Landmark cases which clarified the scope of
moral rights under The Copyright Act 1957.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• Mannu Bhandari was the author of the novel called as “AAP KA
BUNTY” who holds great reputation under Hindi literature.
• She entered into a contract with Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd.
• Contract was about filming of her novel and she assigned the rights
of the same.
• The defendant produced the film with a different name viz.
“SAMAY KI DHARA”
• Plaintiff filed the case for restraining the screening of the aforesaid
film.
• The Appellant claimed that the Respondent have distorted and
mutilated her novel for commercial gain.
• Both Appellant & Respondent reached a settlement before the
judgment was delivered by the Court.
• The parties requested the Court to deliver its judgment, as the scope
of protection of moral rights in India had not yet been clarified by
the higher judiciary in India.
• The court held that as per sec 57. Of the copyright act, protects social
interest in art & cultural and not merely the interest.
• Section 57 confers additional special rights on the author which exists
even after the assignment of copy rights
• A mere contract cannot negate the special rights and remedies
guaranteed under section 57 of copyright act
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

The original Novel by the Plaintiff, ‘Aap Ka Bunty’ is recognised by the

public both nationally and internationally for its script, theme, dialogue,
substance and the central idea.
If a distorted version of her novel is allowed to be presented through the
film then her admirers would conclude that she has fallen prey to big
money and consented to mutilations and distortions of her novel and her
sincerity and commitment will be in doubt.
 Arguments on behalf of the Respondents

By signing the contract of assignment, and receiving the full amount in

consideration for assignment of rights, the Appellant had agreed to the
modifications.
The Appellant cannot object to the modifications after the movie has
been produced.
In case of a literary reproduction of the novel with impermissible
changes, the publisher can be restrained. However, if a film is produced
based on the novel, no restraint order can be passed.
 Procedural History
• The case was first held in filed in the district court where LD. ADJ,
denied plaintiff permanent injunction against the filming of the screen
as in his opinion plaintiff suffered no loss of reputation.
• The case was settled by the parties themselves out of court and the
court merely ruled on question of law due to lack of precedent on
power of court and rights of author under section 57 of the copyright
act.
 ISSUES With HOLDINGS
1. What is the extent of power of court under section 57?
ØFor the purpose of section 57 , The modification allowed should not
be so serious that the modified form of the work looks quite different
from the original.
2. Weather assignee of a copyright can claim any rights and immunities
based on a contract which is inconsistent with the provisions of section
57 ?
ØThe assignee of a copyright cannot claim any rights and immunities
based on a contract which is inconsistent with the provisions of section
57.
3. Whether the movie can be filmed as it is or with the changes ?
ØThe court directed to remove the scenes which were too crude, brash
and nauseating and not part of the original movie.
 Judgement and Observation of the Court

• On Respondents’ objection that the acceptance of the total consideration for

the assignment disqualifies the Appellant from holding any rights in the
work, the Court held that the wording of Section 57, viz. ‘even after the
assignment’ dismisses such a contention. Assignment means the passing of
the title on payment of consideration, and the legislators have made it clear
through the words used, that the special rights of the author can be exercised
even after an assignment.
• The basic question before the Court was how to balance the author’s
freedom of expression with that of the director in the field of art. The
Court agreed with the trial Court to as much that some changes are
inevitable when a novel is being converted into a motion picture, but
held that such changes or modifications should not convert the work
into an entirely new version of the original work. The modifications
should not distort or mutilate the original novel. The main theme, the
situations and the main characters of the novel must be untouched.
• To answer the question, the Court interpreted the scope of Section 57
of the Copyright Act, 1957 and held that the section gives special
rights to the author beyond the material gains of copyright. These
rights are independent of the author’s copyright and the remedies open
to the author under Section 55.
• The fact that remedies can be claimed even after an assignment has
been made, highlights the special protection of the intellectual
property. Thus, Section 57 has an overriding effect over the terms of
the contract of assignment of a copyright. Hence, the contract of
assignment between the parties must be read subject to the rights given
to an author under Section 57. A contract cannot negate the special
rights and remedies available to an author under the section. The right
of the Appellant/assignor to seek a remedy under the section does not
stand waived by the assignment.
• Though the appeal was disposed off in the terms of the settlement, the
observations and directions of the Hon’ble Court provide a guiding
light towards interpretation of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
THANK YOU