Issue No. 4 was not pressed by the defendants and was accordingly decided against them. 4. Is the suit bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action? 11. Issue No. 1 was decided against the defendants and it was held by the trial Judge that the plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in the play ‘Hum Hindustani’. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial Judge and the High Court have not been assailed before us. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the Delhi High Court where a Division Bench of that Court affirmed the decision of the District Judge and upheld the decree dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. 2 and 3 which were however decided against the plaintiff as the learned Judge held that there was no violation of the copy-right of the plaintiff. 12. In order to appreciate the argument of both the parties it may be necessary to discuss the law on the subject, To begin with there is no decided case of this Court on this point, Secondly, at the time when the cause of action arose Parliament had not made any law governing copyright violation and the courts in the absence of any law by our Parliament relied on the old law passed by the British Parliament, namely, the Copyright Act of 1911. Sec.

Where the only evidence of similarities between two plays was based upon the author’s analysis and interpretation of an extensive list of " parallel" from which he inferred that many incidents, scenes and characters in the alleged infringing play were adapted from the plaintiff’s copyrighted play, but no such resemblance would be apparent to an ordinary observer, it was held that the meaning or interpretation which the author gives to his literary work cannot be accepted as a deciding test of plagiarism; and that, in the absence of any material resemblance which could be recognized by an ordinary observation, each play must be regarded as the independent work of the named author. A wrong result can easily be reached if one begins by dissecting the plaintiff’s work and asking, could section A be the subject of copyright if it stood by itself, could section be protected if it stood by itself, and so on. The author Mahadev Cricket Ground also point out that there is no infringement unless the plaintiff’s playwrighted work has been actually used, so that it may be said that the latter work reproduces the earlier one.

Its eemed as if the river was coming out of a ‘stone door’. 5. Beas View Homestay (15 Km from Chansari Village): Beas View Homestay, located 15 kilometers from Chansari Village, provides stunning views of the Beas River and surrounding mountains. Visitors can embark on a short trek to reach the temple, passing through scenic landscapes and enjoying panoramic views of the surrounding hills. However, if you prefer snowfall and a winter ambiance, visiting from late December to February can be a unique experience. In addition, we provide two examples of protocols (both inspired by private-key classical verification protocols for quantum money schemes) which we can show to be proofs of quantum knowledge under our definition. The earliest records of Bhandup come from 1803, and show the contemporary Bhandup estate to comprise Bhandup, Nahur and Kanjur Marg. 19. We shall now discuss some of the authorities that have been cited at the Bar as also some others with whom we have come across and which throw a flood of light on the point in issue. I had known Anka Setty when I was about 7 or 8 years old since he used to come to visit my grandfather in Mysore.

The Library of Tibetan Works and Archives is one of the best places to visit in Dharamshala. This beautiful monastery is one of the best places to see in Dharamshala. See Exxon Corp. vs. A ‘copy’ as used in copyright cases, signifies a tangible object which is a reproduction of the original work. 15. Moreover, it seems to us that the fundamental idea of violation of copyright or imitation is the violation of the Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" which forms the moral basis of the protective provision of the Copyright Act of 1911. It is obvious that when a writer or a dramatist produces a drama it is a result of his great labour, energy, time and ability and if any other person is allowed to appropriate the labours of the copyrighted work, his act amounts to theft by depriving the original owner of the copyright of the product of his labour. Thus it was pointed out in this case where the aggregate of the similarities between the copyrighted work and the copy lead to cumulative effect that the defendant had imitated the original and that the similarities between the two works are not coincidental, a reasonable inference of colorable imitation or of appropriation of the labour of the owner of the copyright by the defendant is proved, This case was followed by the Master of Rolls in the case of Corelli v. Gray.