National Law Institute University Bhopal

Subject: Intellectual Property Law

Case name: Academy of General Education v. B.
Malini Mallya (2009)
Submitted on: ____________

Submitted to: Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam

Submitted by: Aneesh Upadhyaya, 2013BALLB42

1
Table of Contents
Name of case: ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Citation:................................................................................................................................................... 3
Bench: ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Author: .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Material Facts: ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Issues and Answers of the Court: ........................................................................................................... 4
Decision of Court: ................................................................................................................................... 4
Rationale: ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Eastern Book Company & ors. vs. D.B. Modak & Anr. ........................................................................ 5
R.G. Anand vs. M/s Delux Films & Ors. ............................................................................................... 5
Observations of Court: ............................................................................................................................ 5
Conclusion and Personal Opinion: .......................................................................................................... 6

2
Name of case:
Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya (2009)

Citation:
ILR 2008 KAR 1074, MIPR 2008 (1) 373

Bench:
S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, B. Sudershan Reddy (Constitutional bench)

Author:
S Sinha

Material Facts:

This particular case concerns the rights of Malini Mallya, who had acquired a right in
the subject matter of the dispute by way of will from Jnanpith awardee Kota
Shivarama Karanth before his death in 1997.
She had approached the Udupi district judge contending that her copyright was
violated by the Academy of General Education and MGM College, Manipal when
they staged a ballet in Delhi in 2001 without her consent.
The district judge upheld her claim and decreed a permanent injunction to protect her
copyright and restrained the Academy and MGM College from staging the seven
ballets/prasangas.

The same was subsequently upheld by the Karnataka High Court when it dismissed an
appeal by the Academy and MGM College against the Udupi district judge's
permanent injunction but the High Court modified the lower court's order stating that

3
 the Academy and MGM College could stage the ballets in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957.

The Academy and MGM College preferred an appeal against the High Court
judgment in the Supreme Court.

Issues and Answers of the Court:

i) Does plaintiff prove that late Dr. Shivaramaji Karanth had acquired copy right in
the Yaksharanga Ballet in respect of seven Yakshagana Prasangas and also in
respect of Yakshagana dramatic or theatrical form?
Courts answer: Yes. Dr. Karanth had undoubtedly made substantial
changes to the traditional art form of Yakshagana.
ii) Has the plaintiff became entitled to the said right under the Registered Will
dated 18.6.1994?
Courts answer: Yes. Will was valid.
iii) Does the plaintiff prove that her right under the said Will was infringed by the
defendants?
Courts answer: Yes. Ballet was performed without her consent.
iv) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
Court answer: Injunction restraining the performance of the Yaksharanga Ballet
not coming under S. 52 (1) (a) Fair Dealing. However, no award of
compensation.

Decision of Court:

4
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court and the High Court's judgments as regards
Malini Mallya's copyright.

Rationale:
The Court primarily relied on two landmark cases in the field of fair dealing:

Eastern Book Company & ors. vs. D.B. Modak & Anr.1
Copyrighted material is that what is created by the author by his own skill, labour and
investment of capital, maybe it is a derivative work which gives a flavour of creativity.

R.G. Anand vs. M/s Delux Films & Ors.2

One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a
violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or
seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the
subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.

Issues (i), (ii) and (iv) were not hotly contested. However, issue (iii) was contested on the
grounds that it ought to have been held that no cause of action arose against the appellants
in this case as the Institution had performed the said dance at New Delhi in the memory of
Dr. Karanth without charging any fees.

Observations of Court:

The Court went on to elaborate the High Court's judgment by stating the conditions under
which the Academy and MGM College can stage the ballets in future within the bounds of
the Copyrights Act.

1
(2008) 1 SCC 1
2
1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218

5
The apex court clarified that subject to the limits laid down by Section 51 (1)(a) (i) and (1) of
the Copyrights Act, the Academy and MGM College could stage those seven ballets for
private use, research, criticism or review of literary dramatic, musical or artistic work.

Staging by staff and students of an educational institution with limited audience of staff,
students, their parents/guardians and those who are connected with the institution, and
staging by amateur club or society without receiving any remuneration or consideration etc
for the benefit of religious institutions are not subject to copyright or decree of injunction.

Conclusion and Personal Opinion:

In my opinion this case is perfectly sound. The principles in RG Anand and Eastern Book
Company cases has been applied exactly as they were intended to be. In this particular case
the rights of the intellectual property holder are protected, but the court balanced the
judgement by also clarifying fair use by the appellant.