Dismissed

Xxiv Frames Enterainment and 2 Ors. v. Bharat Thakkar and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2011NMS/395/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a notice of motion seeking direction to defendants to deposit money and file accounts of profits from a play. The court held that copyright vests with the author under section 16 of the Copyright Act and granted summary adjudication against the plaintiffs lacking clear title.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion dismissed. Defendant No.3 entitled to withdraw deposited amount after 31.7.2011.

Xxiv Frames Enterainment and 2 Ors. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

nms395-11

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.395 OF 2011

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.296 OF 2011

¶8

M/s.XXIV Frames Entertainment & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Bharat Thakkar & Ors. ....Defendants

¶9

Mr.Simil Purohit with Ms.Bijal Trivedi i/b M/s.Bhagwati & Co. for the Plaintiff.

¶10

Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.D. Brijesh for Defendant Nos.1 and 4.

¶11

Mr.Hemant Ingale for Defendant No.2.

¶12

Mr.Manoj Prajapati i/b Mr.Prashant Goyal for Defendant No.3.

¶13

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The plaintiffs seek an order directing the defendants to deposit

¶16

various sums of money allegedly towards their share. They also seek an order directing the defendants to file the accounts of the profits earned by the public performance of a play “Kanji Virudh Kanji” and to pay over the same. The prayer restraining the defendants from staging the play on 16.1.2011 is now infructuous.

¶17

Firstly, no case has been made out for directing the defendants to deposit leave alone to pay to the plaintiffs any amount of money. Nor is there any warrant for an order directing the defendants to file the accounts.

¶18

¶19

nms395-11

¶20

The plaintiffs’ case is this : Defendant No.2 is the author of the play. Defendant No.3 was the director. Defendant No.4 is the partnership firm of which defendant Nos.1 to 3 are partners. The defendants however contended that defendant No.4 is a sole proprietory firm. Considering the view that I have taken, this controversy makes no difference.

¶21

The plaintiffs’ entire case is that they are the owners of the copyright of the play on account of their being the producer thereof. The plaintiffs rely upon an undated writing addressed by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs which reads as under :-

¶22

“Dear Sir,

¶23

This to put on record that I have received two cheques of Rs.1,50,000 each one drawn on Bank of Maharashtra for Rs.1,50,000 and second dated 6.10.2009 drawn on Citibank for Rs.1,50,000. Total amount received from XXIV Frames Entertainment as of now is Rs. 3,00,000 towards the co-production of the Gujrati plays Kanji Vs Kanji. As per the terms agreed between Amardip and XXIV Frames, Amardip will pay 30% of the net profit of each show to XXIV Frames Entertainment after recovering the total cost of the play.

¶24

Total cost of the play is .............................”

¶25

The writing is disputed by the defendants. I will for the purpose

¶26

of this notice of motion, presume the same to be genuine. The same however, does not create any rights in favour of the plaintiffs. Even assuming that the plaintiffs were the co-producers of the play, the copyright of the script would not vest in them. The copyright vests in defendant No.2 who is the author. Defendant No.2 was not under a contract of service. There is nothing on record which even remotely suggests that there was any master-servant relationship between the

¶27

3 nms395-11

¶28

plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Even assuming that there was any arrangement between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, it was a contract for services. In that event, under section 16 of the Copyrights Act, the copyright would vest in defendant No.2.

¶29

Pursuant to an ad-interim order dated 15.1.2011, defendant No.3 deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. There is no warrant for continuing the order. There is nothing on record which establishes that the shows were produced by the plaintiffs. Even assuming that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 co-produced any shows and that the plaintiffs are entitled to their share on account thereof, the reliefs prayed for in the notice of motion cannot be granted. They must await the trial.

¶30

In the circumstances, the notice of motion is dismissed. Defendant No.3 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount after 31.7.2011.

Xxiv Frames Enterainment and 2 Ors. v. Bharat Thakkar and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxiv Frames Enterainment and 2 Ors. v. Bharat Thakkar and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monarose Pereira Vs Shaileshj M. Pareikh and 14 Ors.

Ashwin P. Shah and Jyoti Ashwin Shah Vs Hemendra S. Parekh and 8 Ors.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Bikram K. Pradhan and Anr.

Sanjay Baburao Awhad Vs Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd.

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Dashrath C. Walhekar and Anr.

Jayantilal Tarachand Bhansali Vs Raju Padwal