Allowed

Moserbaer India Limited v. Movie Land and Ors. D+

Delhi HC6 Sept 2016CS(OS)/1625/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff sued for permanent injunction against defendants for infringing film rights. After defendants stopped appearing, the court relied on un-contested plaintiff evidence establishing exclusive acquisition of video rights for 65 films, granting permanent injunction and dismissing the pleas for costs share.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction restraining defendants from manufacturing, selling, circulating, distributing, or giving on hire video cassettes/DVDs/LCDs of 65 films.

Moserbaer India Limited Vs Movie Land and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) NO.1625/2007 & CCP(O) No.142/2007

¶4

MOSERBAER INDIA LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Mr. D.K. Singh and Ms. Komal Mundhra, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

MOVIE LAND AND ORS. ..... Defendants

¶7

Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶10

% 06.09.2016

¶11

The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 6 namely Movie Land, Meta Electronics (Movieland), Supreme Audio, Musik Enterprises, Super Track and Pioneer Audio from manufacturing, selling, circulating, distributing or giving on hire etc. any video cassettes, VCD, DVDs, LCDs in respect of 65 films and for ancillary reliefs.

¶12

The suit was entertained and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 3^rd September, 2007, the defendants so restrained and a Court Commissioner appointed to visit the premises of the defendants and to seize the infringing DVDs. The said order has continued till now.

¶13

The defendants appeared and filed a written statement.

¶14

Vide order dated 21^st February , 2008, the aforesaid interim order was vacated, save in respect of 5 films.

¶15

The plaintiff preferred FAO(OS) No.121/2008 but which was dismissed on 14^th March,2008.

¶16

CS(OS) NO.1625/2007

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

The defendants stopped appearing in the suit and were on 15^th February, 2011 proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff permitted to lead ex-parte evidence.

¶19

The plaintiff has examined its officer and who had deposed that the plaintiff acquired valuable and exclusive video rights from various owners of copyright of 65 cinematographic films subject matter of the suit and his evidence has gone un-rebutted.

¶20

The defendants, though ex-parte, in their written statement claimed to have acquired rights in the said films and on the basis whereof the stay was vacated. However, the defendants have opted not to prove the said defence and in the absence thereof, there is no reason to not accept the claim of the plaintiff.

¶21

The plaintiff is thus found entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 29(a) & (b) of the plaint.

¶22

No evidence of damages if any to which the plaintiff may be entitled to, has been led; thus no decree to the said effect can be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶23

Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of prayer paragraph 29(a) & (b) of the plaint.

¶24

The parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶25

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶26

CCP(O) No.142/2007

¶27

Dismissed as not pressed.

¶28

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶29

SEPTEMBER 06, 2016 bs..

¶30

CS(OS) NO.1625/2007

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Moserbaer India Limited v. Movie Land and Ors. D+

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moserbaer India Limited v. Movie Land and Ors. D+

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.D.Builders and Hotels Vs DDA Fc+

M/S Y.D.Builders & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) Fc+

Kamla Family Trust Vs Air India Ac+

Shri Vivan Mehra Vs Smt. Gita Kwatra & Ors. Bc+

Devinder Khanna Vs Mehta Cad Cam Systems

Brigadier Bholeshwar Chopra Vs A.N Chopra and Ors.

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mr. Gyanji Choudhary and Anr.

Harjeet Kaur Vs Tarun Deep Singh & Ors.

Daljeet Singh Anand Vs Harjinder Singh Anand

Vinod Kumar Arora & Anr. Vs M/S Candour Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. F+ B+

Devinder Khanna Vs Mehta Cad Cam Systems

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mr. Gyanji Choudhary and Anr.

Harsh Vardhan Bansal & Anr. Vs Niho Construction Ltd. & Anr.