Copyright injunction needs substantial copying of protected expression; broad themes and stock characters are not enough for interim restraint.

Calcutta HC held that interim copyright restraint requires a clear prima facie case of substantial copying of protected expression, not merely a shared theme, stock characters, or other broad similarities; on the limited material available, no such case was shown and the injunction could not stand. The Court also treated nondisclosure of the earlier Bombay proceedings and related facts as material suppression that misled the Court and justified denial of ex parte interim relief. On balance of convenience, the respondents' investment and commitments in the television serial outweighed the unproven allegation of infringement, so the bank guarantee direction was also lifted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the material placed before the Court disclosed a prima facie case of copyright infringement in respect of the proposed television serial; (ii) whether suppression of the earlier Bombay proceedings and related facts disentitled the plaintiffs to interim relief; and (iii) whether the injunction and bank guarantee directions could be sustained on balance of convenience.

Issue (i): whether the material placed before the Court disclosed a prima facie case of copyright infringement in respect of the proposed television serial.

Analysis: Copyright protection was held to extend to the expression of an idea and not to the underlying idea, theme, plot, or stock characters. On the materials then available, the only shown common features were the broad rags-to-riches theme and some general character parallels, while the details, scenes, sequence, and expression of the two works had not been sufficiently compared because the serial was still largely unbroadcast. The alleged admissions in the interview were treated as technically and evidentially limited, and the Court held that such scant material could not establish substantial copying or adaptation of a substantial part of the book.

Conclusion: No prima facie case of copyright infringement was made out; the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether suppression of the earlier Bombay proceedings and related facts disentitled the plaintiffs to interim relief.

Analysis: The Court found that the earlier Bombay suit, its withdrawal with liberty to file afresh, and the reasons connected with that withdrawal were material facts that ought to have been disclosed when the ex parte injunction was sought in Calcutta. The omission was treated as deliberate concealment that misled the Court and attracted the principle that an applicant who obtains ex parte relief by suppression can be denied further consideration on merits, including by exercise of the Court's inherent power.

Conclusion: The suppression was material and justified refusal of interim relief; the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the injunction and bank guarantee directions could be sustained on balance of convenience.

Analysis: The respondents had already invested heavily in the serial and had advertising commitments, while the plaintiffs had not yet shown a concrete infringing broadcast capable of detailed comparison. The Court held that stopping the serial at that stage would cause disproportionate prejudice to the respondents, that the application was premature, and that the ancillary direction requiring a bank guarantee was not warranted in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The injunction was not to continue and the bank guarantee direction was lifted, which was in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory relief claimed by the plaintiffs failed both on merits and on the ground of concealment, and the respondents were left free from the protective restraints imposed below.

Ratio Decidendi: In copyright disputes, interim restraint requires a demonstrable prima facie case of substantial copying of protected expression, not merely a common theme or stock characters, and ex parte relief obtained by suppressing material facts may be denied or set aside in the exercise of the Court's inherent power.

---