Summary
bbbIn the case of Ashok Balakrishnan, Proprietor v. Union of India and 2 Others, the Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of a sculptor who had initially been asked to create a miniature of a statue and was later contacted about sculpting larger versions measuring 10 feet and 20 feet. The Court recorded that the first respondent thereafter installed the same statue without engaging the applicant and instead used the services of two other sculptors. On these facts, the Court granted the interim injunctions sought against reproduction of the sculpture and exploitation of the applicant's proprietary materials.
Background
Copyright Claim Over a Sculpture
The applicant, a sculptor, approached the Madras High Court through two applications in a commercial suit.
In the first application, he sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents and persons acting for them from reproducing, copying, adapting, modifying, or creating derivative works of his sculpture or any work substantially similar to it. He claimed that these acts would infringe his copyright in the sculpture.
The second application concerned materials that the applicant stated he had supplied in confidence. These included copyrighted works, sketches, images, renderings, specifications, and digital files. He sought an injunction restraining their use or exploitation on the ground that such conduct would violate his intellectual property and confidentiality rights
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the circumstances placed before the Court justified an interim injunction restraining reproduction, copying, adaptation, modification, or creation of derivative works of the sculpture or substantially similar works.
- Whether the respondents should, pending disposal of the suit, be restrained from using or exploiting the proprietary materials that the applicant claimed to have shared in confidence.
- Whether the applicant’s production of the miniature, the subsequent communications regarding larger statues, and the installation of the same statue through other sculptors warranted interim protection.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Applicant
- The applicant sought protection against reproduction, copying, adaptation, modification, and creation of derivative works based on his sculpture.
- He also sought to restrain use or exploitation of sketches, images, renderings, specifications, digital files, and other proprietary material that he claimed to have supplied in confidence.
- The applicant complained that the first respondent had installed the same statue without engaging him and had instead used the services of the second and third respondents.
Respondents
The interim order does not record arguments on behalf of the respondents. It records that counsel for the applicant was heard and thereafter directs notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. suit.
Court’s Analysis
The Court considered the circumstances placed before it by the applicant while deciding whether interim protection should be granted.
It noted that the applicant had been called upon to produce a miniature of the statue. The Court further recorded that the applicant had been communicated with for sculpting statues measuring 10 feet and 20 feet.
The Court then took note of the applicant’s grievance that the first respondent had installed the very same statue without engaging his services and had instead utilised the services of the second and third respondents.
Considering these facts, the Court granted an interim injunction as prayed for by the applicant.
The Court did not provide any further analysis on copyright subsistence, ownership, originality, copying, substantial similarity, confidentiality, or infringement in this interim order. It also did not separately discuss the requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury.
After granting the interim injunction, the Court directed notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. It also permitted private notice through Speed Post with Acknowledgment Due and directed the applicant to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Findings
The findings of the Court are as follows:
- The applicant had been called upon to produce a miniature of the statue and had thereafter been communicated with for sculpting statues measuring 10 feet and 20 feet.
- The first respondent had installed the very same statue without engaging the applicant and had instead utilised the services of the second and third respondents.
- Considering these circumstances, the Court granted the interim injunction as prayed for, directed notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks, and required compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Relevant Paras
Paragraph 3
Considering the fact that the applicant, who had been called upon to produce a miniature of the statue and that has now been installed and was further communicated with for sculpting a statue of 10 and 20 feet and that the 1st respondent has installed the very same statue without engaging the services of the applicant, instead utilizing the services of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for.
Paragraph 4
Notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Private Notice is also permitted through Speed Post with Acknowledgment Due. The applicant shall comply Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.
Case Citation
Ashok Balakrishnan v. Union of India, O.A. Nos. 732 & 733 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 211 of 2026 (Madras H.C. July 28, 2026).
Indian Kanoon case page: Open the full case on Indian Kanoon
Full URL: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7583520/
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts.