Facts: The appellant, Sajeev Pillai, a film director and a script writer claimed to have researched the history of the grand festival Mamankam and prepared a script for a movie based on the same epic. He met VenuKunnapalli and signed a MoU with Kavya Film Company which was associated with Kunnapalli. Sajeev was initially appointed as the director but then his service was terminated and was replaced by someone else. The shooting of the movie was thereafter completed which Sajeev alleged was done by mutilating, distorting and modifying his script. Sajeev in light of that filed a suit seeking various reliefs. An interim injunction application was also filed to restrain the respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing and exploiting the film and issuing pre-release publicity without providing adequate authorship credits to Pillai as per film industry standards. Judgement: In deciding the issue, the court noted that the first sub-section of Section 57(1) provides the author to restrain third parties and the second sub-section provides the author the entitlement to claim damages by such third party in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modifications to his work or any other action, in relation thereto which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation. This provided the appellant an unparalleled advantage in the case and that his assignment of the work would not exhaust the legal right to claim authorship over it.