Introduction 

• This case examines the alleged copyright infringement of a popular Hindi play, “Hum Hindustani”, by the film “New Delhi”. 

Facts 

• The plaintiff (appellant), K.R. Ramnath, was an architect, playwright and producer of stage plays. 
• In 1953, he wrote a Hindi play called "Hum Hindustani" which was first enacted in February 1954 in New Delhi. The play was popular and restaged multiple times. 
• In November 1954, second defendant Mohan Sehgal contacted the plaintiff expressing interest in potentially making a film based on the play. 
  • The second defendant, who was the second defendant, was described as a film director and the proprietor of Delux Films. 
• In January 1955, the plaintiff met with the defendant and narrated the entire play to him. The second defendant did not make any commitment but said he would inform the plaintiff of his reaction later. 
• In May 1955, the second defendant announced production of a film called "New Delhi" under Delux films.  
• The plaintiff wrote to, the second defendant expressing concern about adaptation of his play, but he denied any connection. 
• The film "New Delhi" was released in September 1956. After viewing it, the plaintiff felt it was based entirely on his play. 
  • The plaintiff filed a suit for damages, accounts of profits, and permanent injunction against the defendants for copyright infringement. 
• The defendants denied copying the play and claimed the film was different in content, spirit and climax. They argued similarities were due to the common theme of provincialism. 
• The trial court and Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding no copyright infringement. 
• The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the defendants' film "New Delhi" infringed the copyright of the plaintiff's play "Hum Hindustani"? 
• What are the legal tests and principles to determine copyright infringement in such cases? 

Observations 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower courts' findings of no copyright infringement, based on the following reasons: 

• There were substantial differences between the play and film in treatment of the theme and presentation. 
• The similarities were trivial and related to common ideas not protected by copyright. 
• The dissimilarities outweighed the similarities. 
• Viewing the works as a whole, the film could not be considered a substantial or material copy of the play. 
• The Court was reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's decision in this case reaffirms the principle that ideas themselves are not protected by copyright, but rather their specific expression.