1. M/S Bid and Hammer v. M/S Skn Investments (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.

[2012] [RAJA
RAVI VARMA CASE]

a. Facts of the Case:

The dispute centered around a painting by renowned artist Raja Ravi Varma titled "Jatayu
Vadham" or "Ravana carrying Sita". Bengaluru-based auction house Bid and Hammer had
put the painting up for auction in 2014. However, just before the auction, Kiran Nadar,
owner of the Kiran Nadar Museum of Art, raised questions about the painting's
authenticity, branding it as fake. This led to a legal dispute between Nadar's company, SKN
Investments, and Bid and Hammer.

Nadar had initially agreed to purchase the painting under special terms of payment,
allowing her to pay 50% of the total amount immediately and the remaining 50% within
two months. However, after making the initial payment, Nadar contested the authenticity
of the painting based on a technical report from an expert, claiming it was fake.

Bid and Hammer, feeling aggrieved by Nadar's actions, approached the Karnataka High
Court, invoking the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to resolve the dispute. Justice R.
Gururajan, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, was appointed as the arbitrator to
adjudicate the matter.

During the arbitration proceedings, both parties presented elaborate pleadings, evidence,
and arguments, including expert opinions regarding the authenticity of the painting. After
considering all the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, Justice Gururajan
delivered his award in December, ruling in favor of Bid and Hammer.

b. Reasoning for the Judgment:

Justice Gururajan thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both
parties. Despite a strong argument from Nadar's counsel questioning the authenticity of the
painting, Justice Gururajan found no merit in Nadar's claim. He concluded that the
painting, as described in the auction catalogue, was indeed genuine.

The arbitrator's decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case. He rejected Nadar's argument regarding the painting's authenticity,
stating that it did not hold up under scrutiny. Justice Gururajan's reasoning was grounded in
the evidence presented during the arbitration proceedings, which supported the authenticity
of the painting.

Overall, Justice Gururajan's judgment was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence
and arguments, leading him to conclude that Bid and Hammer had acted appropriately in
selling the genuine painting and that Nadar's claim of it being fake was unfounded.

c. Order of the Judges:

In his award, Justice Gururajan directed Nadar's company, SKN Investments, to pay Bid
and Hammer the residual 50% of the total sum agreed upon for the painting, amounting to
over Rs 79 lakh. Additionally, he ordered the payment of 12% interest to Bid and Hammer
from the date of the invoice until the settlement of the amount, if payment was not made
within two months from December of the previous year.

The arbitrator's decision effectively upheld Bid and Hammer's position and required
Nadar's company to fulfill its payment obligations as per the agreed terms. Justice
Gururajan's ruling provided clarity and resolution to the dispute, ensuring that Bid and
Hammer received compensation for the genuine painting sold at auction.
2. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) 30 PTC 253 (Delhi) {union of India
means India itself…. Case was taken to the supreme court directly for infringement of
fundamental rights}

a. Facts of the Case:

Amarnath Sehgal, a renowned sculptor, was commissioned by the Indian Government to

create a mural for Vigyan Bhavan. The mural took five years to complete and was
displayed in 1962. However, during renovations, the Government decided to remove the
mural without notifying or seeking authorization from Sehgal. Additionally, the mural
suffered damage due to mishandling and negligence during the removal process. Sehgal
sued the Government, alleging that the removal and mistreatment of his mural violated his
moral rights as the author of the work.

b. Reasoning for the Judgment:

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice P. Nandrajog, analyzed the case in light of
Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which deals with moral rights. The Court
emphasized that moral rights are inherent to the author and cannot be taken away, even
after the sale of the work. It held that the destruction and mutilation of the mural
constituted an infringement of Sehgal's moral rights.

The Government argued that it had the right to utilize the work as it saw fit after the sale
was complete and due consideration had been paid. However, the Court rejected this
argument, emphasizing that the damage to the mural harmed Sehgal's reputation as the
author, regardless of ownership. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of Sehgal, awarding
him compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and ordering that the remains of the mural be returned
to him for restoration and potential sale.

c. Order of the Judges:

Justice P. Nandrajog's judgment established important precedents regarding moral rights

and the responsibilities of owners of copyrighted works. The Court's decision reaffirmed
the significance of moral rights in protecting the integrity of an author's work, even after its
sale. Additionally, the Court's order to return the damaged mural to Sehgal for restoration
and potential sale highlighted the importance of preserving the rights and interests of the
author. This case set a tone for future interpretations of moral rights and underscored the
importance of respecting the creative integrity of artists.

3. Raj Rewal v. Union of India &Ors[2018]

a. Facts of the Case:

Renowned architect Raj Rewal designed the iconic Hall of Nations and Nehru Pavilion at
Pragati Maidan. In 2016, the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) proposed
demolishing the Hall to construct a new exhibition-cum-convention center. Rewal filed
multiple legal actions to stop the demolition, including a writ petition and a subsequent
appeal, all of which were dismissed. As demolition began, Rewal filed a lawsuit against the
Union of India and ITPO, arguing that the demolition violated his moral rights as the
architect of the building. He sought a mandatory injunction to compensate him by
recreating the Hall under his supervision. However, no interim reliefs were granted to
Rewal, and the court observed that Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, applies only to
heritage buildings or those of national importance.

b. Reasoning for the Judgment:

The Delhi High Court empathized with Rewal but ultimately rejected his claim that moral
rights under Section 57 were violated by the demolition of the Hall. The court reasoned
that allowing Rewal to prevent the destruction would infringe upon ITPO's right to deal
freely with its property. It also emphasized the constitutional right to property under Article
300A, which supersedes statutory rights. The court interpreted Section 57 to allow authors
to prevent only distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work, not its complete
destruction. It cited the explanation under Section 57(1), stating that failure to display a
work does not infringe moral rights. Additionally, the court relied on Section 52(1)(x) of
the Act, which allows for the reconstruction of buildings according to original architectural
drawings, suggesting that prohibiting demolition would render this provision ineffective.
The court concluded that urban planning and economic considerations outweighed Rewal's
moral rights, and thus, the owner had the authority to demolish the building.

c. Order of the Judges:

The court dismissed Rewal's suit, ruling that he had no cause of action against the
demolition of the Hall. While recognizing the importance of moral rights in copyright law,
the court interpreted Section 57 narrowly, excluding the right to prevent demolition. The
judgment established a precedent limiting the scope of moral rights in Indian copyright
law, prioritizing property rights and urban planning considerations over the rights of
architects.

5. Maqbool Fida Husain and Ors v. Raj Kumar Pandey and Ors[2008]

a. Facts of the Case:

Maqbool Fida Husain, a renowned painter, created a painting titled "Bharat Mata"
depicting India as a naked woman, which he sold to a private collector in 2004. In 2006,
the painting was advertised in an online charity auction for earthquake victims, leading to
protests and private complaints filed in various parts of India. The complaints alleged
offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including distribution of
obscene materials, obscene acts and songs, defamation, and hurting religious sentiments.
Husain filed a revision petition against the trial court's summons.

b. Reasoning for the Judgment:

The High Court of Delhi considered the importance of art as a form of expression and the
constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution. It noted that while freedom of expression can be restricted on grounds of
public decency and morality, art is subject to a different standard. The court outlined
criteria for determining obscenity, including contemporary mores, the preponderance of art
over obscenity, and the perspective of an ordinary person of common sense and prudence.
It emphasized that art with a preponderating public interest may be protected under free
speech rights.
Applying these principles, the court concluded that Husain's painting did not violate
section 292 of the IPC, which deals with obscenity. It reasoned that even if some
individuals found the depiction of Mother India naked offensive, this was insufficient to
constitute obscenity. The court stressed the importance of tolerance for diverse viewpoints
in a democracy and cautioned against criminalizing artistic expression based on subjective
interpretations of offense.

Additionally, the court found that Husain did not commit offenses under other sections of
the IPC, including those related to obscene acts in public, defamation, and hurting religious
sentiments. It concluded that there was no deliberate intention on Husain's part to harm
religious feelings, and the placement of symbols like the Ashok Chakra in the painting did
not show disrespect.

c. Order of the Judges:

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the charges against Husain, ruling that his painting
"Bharat Mata" was not obscene and did not violate any provisions of the IPC. The court
affirmed the importance of artistic freedom and cautioned against using the criminal justice
system to suppress dissenting or controversial artistic works. It also recommended
legislative measures to address jurisdictional issues related to online content. The Supreme
Court later refused to entertain a petition seeking to prosecute Husain, affirming the
painting as a "work of art."

6. Estate of Francis Newton Souza v. ZWYX.org Ltd.

a. Facts of the Case:

The dispute involves the domain name <fnsouza.com>, which was originally registered by
Srimati Lal in 2000 and later transferred to the Respondent, ZWYX.org Ltd. The
Complainant, the Estate of Francis Newton Souza, represented by administrators Shelley
Souza and Jeffrey Greener, alleged that the Respondent and Lal were misusing the domain
name to operate a website featuring Souza's artwork without authorization. The
Complainant claimed common law trademark rights in the name "F.N. Souza" and argued
that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to this trademark. The Respondent,
however, asserted that the website was a legitimate non-commercial tribute to Souza, and
Lal had a legitimate interest in the domain name due to her relationship with the artist.

b. Reasoning for the Judgment:

The panel first addressed the issue of whether the disputed domain name was identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant had rights. It concluded that
the name "F.N. Souza" had acquired common law trademark rights, and the disputed
domain name was identical to this trademark, satisfying the requirement under the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Next, the panel considered whether the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name. Despite the Complainant's claims of unauthorized use and
misrepresentation, the panel found that the website operated by Lal and the Respondent
was a non-commercial fan site dedicated to Souza, and Lal's relationship with the artist
strengthened her legitimate interest in the domain name.

Finally, the panel examined whether the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
It found no evidence to support the Complainant's allegations of bad faith registration or
use by the Respondent or Lal. There was no indication of an intent for commercial gain or
any attempt to mislead consumers regarding the source of the website.

c. Order of the Judges:

Based on the above analysis, the panel denied the Complaint, ruling in favor of the
Respondent and Lal. The disputed domain name <fnsouza.com> would remain with the
Respondent, and there was no requirement for further action regarding its use or
ownership.