Copyright in cinematograph films bars unauthorised rental and commercial import of foreign-territory copies without a licence.

Commercial rental or hire of cinematograph films in India from copies lawfully acquired abroad but licensed only for a foreign territory is treated as infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957 because Section 14(d)(ii) gives the copyright owner an exclusive right to hire or offer copies for hire, and Section 51 applies where that right is exercised without licence. The Court also treated importation of such copies for commercial rental as import of infringing copies, since the statutory exception is limited to one copy for the importer's private and domestic use. It further rejected the Article 19(1)(g) challenge, describing copyright enforcement as protection of a statutory property right rather than an unconstitutional restraint on trade.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rental or hire in India of cinematograph films lawfully acquired abroad but authorised only for a foreign territory infringes copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957; (ii) whether importation into India of such copies for rental or hire constitutes import of infringing copies; (iii) whether restrictions on such rental business violate the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (iv) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to final injunction relief.

Issue (i): whether rental or hire in India of cinematograph films lawfully acquired abroad but authorised only for a foreign territory infringes copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 14(d)(ii) confers on the copyright owner of a cinematograph film the exclusive right to sell, give on hire, or offer for sale or hire any copy of the film, regardless of prior circulation. Section 51 treats as infringement any act done without licence that falls within the owner's exclusive rights. The Court held that the limited exhaustion concept in Section 14(a)(ii) for literary works cannot be extended to cinematograph films, and that the statutory scheme does not recognize international exhaustion for such films.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the defendant. Rental or hire in India of such foreign-territory copies without the copyright owner's authorization constitutes infringement.

Issue (ii): whether importation into India of such copies for rental or hire constitutes import of infringing copies.

Analysis: An infringing copy under Section 2(m) includes a copy of a cinematograph film made or imported in contravention of the Act. Section 51(b)(iv) expressly covers import into India of infringing copies, and its proviso carves out only one copy for the private and domestic use of the importer. The Court also relied on Section 53 and the International Copyright Order to hold that foreign works protected abroad are protected in India as if first published in India. The import for commercial rental purposes therefore fell outside the statutory exception.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Importation of such copies for commercial rental or hire constitutes import of infringing copies.

Issue (iii): whether restrictions on such rental business violate the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that enforcement of copyright rights under Sections 14, 51 and 53 protects a statutory property right and does not amount to an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The defendant remained free to negotiate licences, and the absence of a statutory exemption for this form of rental did not render the copyright regime unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the defendant. No violation of Article 19(1)(g) was made out.

Issue (iv): whether the plaintiffs were entitled to final injunction relief.

Analysis: Although the substantive copyright issues were decided in the plaintiffs' favour, the Court noted that the defendant disputed the plaintiffs' ownership of all claimed works, which required evidence. For that reason, final relief could not be granted at that stage, though the earlier ad-interim injunction was confirmed to continue until disposal of the suit.

Conclusion: Final injunction relief was declined at that stage, but the interim injunction was continued.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld the plaintiffs' copyright claims on infringement, importation and constitutional challenge, but left the suit pending for further proceedings because final relief depended on proof of title to all claimed works.

Ratio Decidendi: In the case of cinematograph films, the Copyright Act does not recognize international exhaustion to defeat the copyright owner's exclusive rights; commercial rental or importation of foreign-made copies without licence is infringement unless the Act expressly permits it.

---