Dismissed

Lahari Recording Co.Pvt.Ltd v. Jain Television

Madras HC5 Jan 2016CS/1823/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two suits over the Telugu dubbed version of the film 'ROJA'. The plaintiff, holding dubbing and remaking rights for specified territories, sued for an injunction against satellite telecast and for one crore rupees in damages. The court held that satellite television rights are a separate, independent right that was never specifically assigned to the plaintiff, found no proved infringement, rejecte

What the court decided

AI extract

Lahari Recording Co.Pvt.Ltd Vs Jain Television — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 09.12.2015

¶4

Delivered on : 05.01.2016

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

C.S.Nos.1823 of 1994 & 748 of 1997

¶8

Lahari Recording Co. P.Ltd.,
1-B, Wallers Lane,
Madras-600 002,
Represented by Power of Attorney
Agent Mr.K.S.Jothiraj .. Plaintiff in both suits
Vs.
1.Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service P. Ltd.),
No.4, Lady Desikachari Road,
Mylapore, Madras-600 004.
2.M/s.Kavithalayaa Productions (Private) Ltd.,
17-A, Karpagambal Nagar,
Mylapore, Madras-600 004.
3.K.Muni Kanniah,
Proprietor, M/s.Sapthagiri Video Movies,
No.3, Gill Nagar,
Madras-600 094. .. Defendants 1 to 3
in both suits
4.Jain Newspapers Private Ltd.,
Mookambigai Complex,
No.4, Lady Desikachari Road,
Mylapore, Madras-600 004.
5.Jain Studios Limited,
Mookambigai Complex,
No.4, Lady Desikachari Road,
Mylapore, Madras-600 004. .. Defendants 4 and 5
in C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶9

(defendants 2 and 3 impleaded as per order dated 4.6.2007 made in A.No.2083/1995)

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

¶12

(5^th defendant impleaded as per the order dated 16.06.2000 made in A.Nos.1801 and 1802 of 2000)

¶13

Prayer in C.S.No.1823 of 1994: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. and Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, praying of a judgment and decree:

¶14

(a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its men, agents, servants or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's copyright over the Telegu version of the picture ROJA by telecasting the same through its satellite network;

¶15

(b) Awarding the costs of the Suit and

¶16

¶17

Prayer in C.S.No.748 of 1997: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, praying of a judgment and decree

¶18

(a) directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation;

¶19

(b) cost of the suit; and

¶20

(c) pass such further or other orders that this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶21

For Plaintiff : Mr.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Surana & Surana

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

For Defendants : M/s.S.Vijayaraghavan Mr.G.Jaishankar for D1 and

¶25

M/s.P.R.Raman and Mr.C.Seethapathy for D2 in C.S.1823 of 1994

¶26

M/s.S.Vijayaraghavan Mr.G.Jaishankar for D1, D4 and D5

¶27

M/s.P.R.Raman and Mr.C.Seethapathy for D2 in C.S.748 of 1997

¶28

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶29

C.S.No.1823 of 1994

¶30

It is averred by the plaintiff that it is a registered company and had obtained the sole and exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu language the film “ROJA” in Cinemascope, written and directed by Thiru.Mani Rathnam and it had obtained the said rights from the second defendant, vide instrument dated 16.06.1992, as it is the original copyright owner in respect of the said picture. It is further stated by the plaintiff that they had got the sole exclusive rights for dubbing, remaking and exhibiting the said dubbed and remade version of the said picture from the second defendant for a consideration of Rs.34,50,000/- for a period of 25 years from the date of the instrument on 16.06.1992 in respect of the areas, namely entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal Andhra and Orissa and by virtue of the fact that it has paid the entire

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

¶33

consideration, it has become a limited copyright owner in respect of the Telugu version of the said picture in the aforementioned areas for a period of 25 years. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that it has not parted with any of its rights in respect of the said Telugu version of the picture to any person in respect of the said areas and by incurring huge costs, it dubbed the said picture into Telugu and released the same very recently only in certain areas allotted to it and is yet to exploit its right in the majority of the areas allotted to it and unless and until it does so, the plaintiff will not be able to get gainful use of the dubbed version.

¶34

The plaintiff would further aver that to it's utter shock and

¶35

surprise, it came across an advertisement made by the defendant on 06.12.1994, stating that it is going to telecast the Telugu version of the Tamil film “ROJA” through its satellite network on 10.12.1994 and the defendant has no right whatsoever to telecast the said picture, as the plaintiff did not part with the rights of exhibition of the picture in Telugu version to any person. It is also stated by the plaintiff that if the defendant is allowed to telecast the said picture through its satellite network, its copyright will be infringed as it could be viewed throughout the world including the areas over which the plaintiff has got sole exclusive rights of exhibition and exploitation of the said film

¶36

through various media including 16mm, 35mm television rights and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

¶38

satellite rights. The plaintiff, on coming to know about the intention of the defendant, has sent a telegraphic notice to the learned counsel for the defendant calling upon the defendant not to telecast the said picture in view of the right claimed by the plaintiff and therefore, came forward to file the present Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's copyright over the Telugu version of the picture “ROJA” by telecasting the same through its satellite network and with costs.

¶39

Originally the Suit was filed against the first defendant alone

¶40

and subsequently, the defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded, vide order dated 04.06.2007 made in A.No.2083/1995.

¶41

The first defendant has filed it's written statement contending

¶42

among other things that by virtue of the agreement dated 16.06.1992, the plaintiff has only theatrical rights in Andhra Pradesh and does not have satellite rights and the absolute satellite right for entire Asian Region including Andhra Pradesh have been obtained by the defendant, vide agreement dated 02.12.1994 executed by the third defendant and he has granted and assigned the exclusive satellite television rights to the first defendant for telecast in the Asian Region

¶43

during the period from 02.12.1994 to 01.12.1995 for a consideration of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

¶45

Rs.3,20,000/-. The defendant would further state that as satellite rights includes right to broadcast through satellite in extraterritorial orbit and beam down a microwave signal through satellite antennae, TVRO's & SMATV system and rebroadcast in the contracted territories, denied the fact that the plaintiff did not part with their satellite rights. It is further averred by the first defendant that the plaintiff is having rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu language of the film “ROJA” only in Andhra Pradesh, which does not include satellite rights and hence, the question of infringement of the said rights on their part does not arise. The first defendant would further state that the second defendant, who is the original producer of Tamil Film “ROJA”, has entered into an agreement and assigned satellite TV rights to the third defendant, who in-turn assigned and transferred the same to the second defendant for a particular period and thereby, it is having absolute satellite rights in respect of the entire Asian Region for a particular period and whereas the plaintiff has only limited rights, namely dubbing and remaking of the said film with theatrical rights only in Andhra Pradesh and he has no satellite rights and hence, prays for dismissal of the Suit.

¶46

The second defendant has filed the written statement stating that being the original producer of the Tamil Film “ROJA”, it is having absolute copyright in respect of the said film, vide agreement dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶47

¶48

16.06.1992 entered into between them and the plaintiff and the plaintiff was granted the sole and exclusive right for dubbing/remaking into Telugu, the movie “ROJA” for a period of 25 years and also granted the right to sub-lease the said right including the 16mm rights for the Telugu dubbed version and in addition, the plaintiff was also entitled to exploit the Telugu dubbed version through television in Andhra Pradesh. It is the specific case of the second defendant that by any stretch of imagination, the agreement did not contemplate exhibition or distribution of the Telugu dubbed version of the movie through satellite and its right were limited only to terrestrial exhibition. The second defendant would further state that it entered into an agreement with the third defendant and granted him the rights to exploit the Telugu version of the movie “ROJA” through video cassettes, which was never conferred on the plaintiff. It is further stated by the second defendant that the third defendant approached them alleging that he had acquired the rights to exploit the Telugu version of the movie “ROJA” into video cassettes pursuant to the agreement entered into by him with the plaintiff and further that he had telecast the movie through the network of the first defendant and requested the plaintiff to assign in his favour the copyright to dub the film again and at that point of time, the second defendant did not initiate action against the plaintiff and the third defendant for infringing its copyright on account of lack of proper legal advice and on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

¶50

getting information that the movie had already been telecast once through the first defendant's channel and subsequent conduct of the third defendant in approaching them for getting the right dub and telecast through satellite television the film “ROJA” in Telugu for two times and it was limited to satellite rights and enough caution was exercised to preserve the terrestrial rights of the plaintiff. It is the categorical stand of the second defendant that it never authorized the third defendant to deal with the plaintiff's dubbed version of the movie “ROJA” and hence, it cannot be responsible for indulgence/lapse on the part of the third respondent and the plaintiff was not possessed of any right for satellite exhibition of the dubbed version of the movie and hence, prays for dismissal of the Suit with costs.

¶51

The plaintiff has filed a reply statement denying the

¶52

averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 and reiterated it's stand taken in the plaint and stated that the third defendant has misused the right accorded to the plaintiff to prepare video cassettes and sold the same to the first defendant for telecasting in satellite television and the first defendant, in spite of the subsistence of the interim order in the Suit, has done so. According to the plaintiff, the dubbing rights granted to them includes satellite rights and the right to prepare Video Cassettes etc. and the Censor Board has issued Censor Certificate dated 20.11.1992 in the name of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

¶54

the plaintiff and so also the Film Publicity Clearance Committee, South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce has issued clearance certificate in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would further contend that the second defendant has colluded with the third defendant and unlawfully sold the dubbing and satellite rights and the second defendant has no right whatsoever to sell the dubbing rights once again to the third defendant and on account of the collusion, the second defendant did

¶55

not take steps and prays for decreeing of the Suit.

¶56

C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶57

The plaintiff in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 has filed this Suit praying for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation alleging that on account of the acts of the defendants, it suffered loss and damages. It is averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff apart from reiterating the averments made by them in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 would state that on account of the agreement entered into by them with the second defendant, namely M/s.Kavithalayaa Productions, it has become the sole and absolute owner of the negative rights and all other copyrights including the right to telecast the picture either in the television or through satellite

¶58

television throughout the world and the plaintiff had entered into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶59

¶60

another agreement with the third defendant dated 25.01.1993 conferring them right to telecast in India alone. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the first defendant in collusion with the defendants 2 to 4, had telecasted the picture on 9^th and 10^th December 1994 through satellite throughout the world and thereby, the plaintiff has suffered loss and damages and on account of the same, proceeds of the plaintiff to earn income by telecasting was hampered and dimmed. The first defendant, on account of telecasting the picture throughout the world through satellites, has earned crores of rupees by way of advertisements, sponsorships, naming rights etc. and the estimated loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of the acts of the first defendant is a minimum of Rs.1 Crore and hence, came forward to file this Suit.

¶61

8.The second defendant has filed a written statement reiterating

¶62

their stand taken by them in the written statement filed in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and would further state that the plaintiff is trying

¶63

to mis-interpret the agreement dated 16.06.1992 to its advantage illegally and at no point of time, satellite right was given to the plaintiff under the above said agreement. It is further stated by the second defendant that the effect and meaning of the agreement entered into between the third defendant is that it can dub the film

¶64

“ROJA” into Telugu language only and it did not give the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

¶66

defendant to exploit the plaintiff's Telugu dubbed version “ROJA” and the agreement between them and the plaintiff gives the plaintiff the sole and exclusive right to dub and remake for the purpose of distributing theatrical rights in Andhra Pradesh and other specified territories for a period of 25 years and this cannot be construed to mean that the second defendant cannot give dubbing rights of the film “ROJA” in Telugu language to anyone else for exploitation otherwise than in theatres and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

¶67

The fifth defendant came to be impleaded as per the order dated 16.06.2000 made in A.Nos.1801 and 1802 of 2000 and the defendants 1, 4 and 5 had filed their written statements, denying the averments made in the plaint and took a stand that the claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation and on merits of the case contended that the plaintiff is having right to exploit the Telugu dubbed version in television in Andhra Pradesh and no other rights including satellite rights were granted to the plaintiff and it is only limited with regard to the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” and also further denied the fact that the plaintiff alone had the exclusive copyright of exhibition including satellite television rights. The said defendants also took a legal plea that this Court has specifically held in a series of decisions that satellite rights cannot be

¶68

the subject matter of assumption or of automatic transfer, but can only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶69

¶70

be the subject of specific and unambiguous transfer and unless there is a specific transfer of satellite rights made clear in the agreement, no assignee can stake claim to it as a matter of course or right and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Suit with costs.

¶71

The plaintiff has filed it's reply statement reiterating the stand taken by them in the plaint and stated that the defendants 1 and 3 had committed fraud and they actively colluded with each other to deprive the valuable right of the plaintiff and in fact the second defendant had taken away the negatives of the film “ROJA” from Vijaya Colour Laboratory on 01.02.1999 and refused to give back and the second defendant had once again assigned the satellite right of the Telugu movie to E Tv also. Thus it is the specific stand of the plaintiff that it is having satellite rights in respect of the Telugu version of the film “ROJA” and therefore, the defendants have no right whatsoever to telecast the said film through satellite and on account of illegal telecast, it has suffered loss and therefore, entitled to a decree for damages.

¶72

The plaintiff has also filed A.No.3595 of 2008 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 praying for joint trial and vide order dated 11.08.2008, it was ordered and the evidence recorded in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 is to be taken as evidence in C.S.No.728 of 1997 also.

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

¶75

In C.S.No.1823 of 1994, the following issues are framed:

¶76

1. Whether the plaintiff's copyrights are confined only to dubbing and remaking of the film “ROJA” in Telugu in the area of Andhra Pradesh?

¶77

2. Whether the plaintiff has any satellite rights specifically assigned to it.

¶78

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to assert in the absence of satellite rights in its favour that the defendant has infringed its copyrights?

¶79

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

¶80

5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

¶81

In C.S.No.748 of 1997, the following issues are framed:

¶82

1. Whether the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the negative rights and all other copyrights including satellite rights, in respect of the Telugu version of the film “ROJA” ?

¶83

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶84

¶85

2. Whether the nature of copyright acquired by the plaintiff under the agreement with the second defendant dated 16.06.1992 was only the theatrical right?

¶86

3. Has the first defendant acquired satellite rights in respect of the Telugu version of the film “ROJA”?

¶87

4. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation

¶88

insofar as the fifth defendant is concerned?

¶89

5. Whether the defendants caused loss to the

¶90

plaintiff by telecasting the Telugu version of the film “ROJA”?

¶91

6. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages with interest?

¶92

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

¶93

The Managing Director of the plaintiff company has filed his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and through him, Exs.P1 to P27 were marked. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the defendants and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked while PW1 was cross examined.

¶94

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶95

¶96

Mr.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in both the Suits has invited the attention of this Court to the testimony of PW1 and exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff and would contend that as per Ex.P1/agreement dated 16.06.1992 entered into between the second defendant and the plaintiff for the Telugu dubbing/remaking rights of the Tamil film “ROJA”, only with the rights to distribute, exhibit and exploit the said Telugu dubbed/remaked version of the said picture in the areas of the entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal Andhra Pradesh, Orissa for a period of 25 years and a sum of Rs.34,50,000/- has been paid as consideration to the second defendant for granting the said right and the second defendant has also agreed to give an irrevocable lab authorization letter to the plaintiff to utilize the mother negative for Telugu dubbing remake purposes and also for making the number of Telugu dubbed prints as and when required by the plaintiff during the period of agreement and in pursuant to Ex.P1/agreement, the plaintiff has approached the Central Board of Film Certification, which issued

¶97

the Certificate for Unrestricted Public Exhibition under Ex.P2 for the film “ROJA” and it has also been indicated that the name of the producer is the plaintiff only and the Film Publicity Clearance Committee of the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce has issued a Clearance Certificate under Ex.P3 dated 20.11.1992 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of publicity materials of the above said film. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶98

¶99

the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff that under Ex.P4/agreement dated 25.01.1993, the plaintiff has accorded right to the third defendant, namely Thiru.Muni Kanniah and also granted lease in favour of the third defendant the video recording/copying rights of the said film for a period of perpetual starting from the date of agreement and the plaintiff also agreed to supply one good print of the film “ROJA” Telugu Colour 35 mm on loan basis for making of U Matic purpose and the third defendant was also accorded right to reproduce the said film on Video Cassettes and to distribute the same for the purpose of viewing exhibition on Television in India.

¶100

It is the primordial submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the right granted to it under Ex.P1/agreement by the second defendant includes satellite rights also and under Ex.P4/agreement it has granted lease of video recording and copying rights of the said film and thereby, the third defendant is entitled to manufacture video cassettes containing the said film and distribute the same for the purpose of viewing on television in India and the second defendant, under Ex.P11, has addressed a letter to Vijaya Colour Labs dated 04.11.1992 informing that they have assigned the Telugu dubbing rights of the film “ROJA” in favour of the plaintiff and on coming to know that attempts have been made to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶101

¶102

telecast the dubbed version by the first defendant, legal notices have been sent to E TV under Ex.P19 pointing out that the plaintiff is having satellite rights in respect of Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” and thereby got right to telecast through satellite. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P21 letter dated 28.04.2007 from M/s.Vijaya Colour Labs addressed to the plaintiff wherein it has been stated that the second defendant has taken delivery of the negatives for editing purposes and inspite of repeated reminders, they have been expressing their inability to hand over the negatives citing certain issues to be settled between them and the plaintiff and they have not received back the Telugu dubbed version assigned in favour of the third defendant, who in-turn entered into an agreement with other telecastors and unauthorizedly telecasted the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” produced by the plaintiff and the said act is per se illegal and contrary to the terms of the agreement. Attention of this Court was also drawn to Ex.D1/agreement entered into between the second defendant and the third defendant dated 19.12.1994 and Ex.D2/agreement entered into between the fourth defendant and the third defendant dated 30.09.1994 and it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff that in and by which the second defendant had created satellite rights for two times telecast in respect of Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶103

¶104

favour of the third defendant, who in-turn assigned the same in favour of the plaintiff based on which telecasts have been made and after assigning the rights to the plaintiff in respect of Telugu dubbed version, the defendants have no right whatsoever to deal with the same in the form of satellite rights and thus prays for decreeing of both the Suits.

¶105

Mr.P.R.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant would submit that admittedly the second defendant is the author and producer of the Tamil version of the film “ROJA” and as per the practice prevalent, audio, video, terrestrial and satellite rights are independent of each other and what was given to the plaintiff by the second defendant is only the right to make Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” that too for telecasting the said film in the areas specified for a period of 25 years from the date of executing Ex.P1/agreement and invited the attention of this Court to Ex.P1/agreement and would submit that no satellite rights have been assigned to the plaintiff and as such, it is not open to them to claim that they have been assigned satellite rights. It is the submission of

¶106

the learned counsel appearing for the second defendant that the plaintiff has given right to the third defendant to make video cassettes of the Telegu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” and the third defendant having found that satellite television rights have not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶107

¶108

given to the plaintiff, had approached the second defendant and the agreement under Ex.D1 came into being on 19.12.1994 wherein the second defendant had given rights to telecast the Telugu dubbed version to be made by the third defendant for two times only and it was only a limited right. Attention of this Court was also invited to the cross examination of PW1, wherein the plaintiff has made a crucial admission as to the non-granting of satellite rights and on legal plea, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second defendant that the plaintiff has miserably failed to produce any tenable evidence especially with regard to claim of damages in C.S.No.748 of 1997 and would further contend that both the Suits are frivolous and vexatious and deserve dismissal with exemplary costs.

¶109

Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the

¶110

defendants 1,4 and 5 would submit that at no point of time, the plaintiff was conferred with satellite rights by the second defendant, who is the original producer of the film “ROJA” and what was transferred/assigned to him was the right to dub/remake into Telugu language the picture “ROJA” and telecast in a particular area for a period of 25 years and there is no specific recital even in Ex.P1 as to the grant of satellite rights in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1, 4 and 5 that the plaintiff is having restricted/limited copyright in respect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶111

¶112

of limited areas and it cannot be extended to satellite rights as it is distinct and separate and in any event, the first defendant did not violate any of the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has miserably failed to probablize its case with regard to infringement of Telugu dubbed version for the reason that the Telugu dubbed version of the movie “ROJA” have not been marked as an exhibit. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1, 4 and 5 that the first defendant was belatedly impleaded as a party and it has not been made clear the date on which amendments have came into effect and no worthwhile evidence has been adduced as to the quantum of compensation claimed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.748 of 1997 and for that no details has been produced as to the income earned by him and in the absence of the same, damages claimed by the plaintiff cannot be given at all. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1, 4 and 5, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions:

¶113

(i) Raj Video Vision v. Sun T.V. [2001-2-L.W. 232] (ii) Ramalinga Chettiar v. P.K.Pattabiraman and Another [(2001) 4 SCC 96].

¶114

The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in response to

¶115

the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶116

¶117

defendants, reiterated his submissions and would contend that the second defendant knowing pretty well that the plaintiff is the producer of the Telugu dubbed version of the movie “ROJA” has clandestinely got the negative from Vijaya Colour Lab and gave it to the third defendant in terms of Ex.D1 agreement and the third defendant, inturn granted the right to telecast through satellite to the first defendant under Ex.D2, based on which the Telugu dubbed version was telecasted and admittedly the Telugu dubbed version was developed by the plaintiff and as such, it has been infringed by the acts of the defendants and the plaintiff, through overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, has sustained and probablised it's case and prays for decreeing of both the Suits with costs.

¶118

This Court paid it's best attention and anxious consideration

¶119

to the rival submissions and also perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences.

¶120

Issue No.2 and 3 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and Issue No.2 and 3 in C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶121

In a nutshell, it is the specific case of the plaintiff in both

¶122

suits that under Ex.P1/agreement dated 16.06.1992, it had sole and exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking and exhibiting Telugu dubbed

¶123

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶124

¶125

version of the Tamil film “ROJA” and it also includes satellite rights. Ex.P1 is the agreement dated 16.06.1992, entered into between the second defendant, namely M/s.Kavithalayaa Productions Private Limited and the plaintiff and as per the terms of the said agreement, the second defendant has accorded sole and exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu language of the movie “ROJA” in favour of the plaintiff and to distribute the same in the areas of entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal Andhra Pradesh and Orissa for a period of 25 years from the date of the agreement and the plaintiff has parted with a sum of Rs.34.50 lakshs towards consideration in favour of the second defendant. It is relevant to extract Clause Nos.6, 7 & 8 of Ex.P1/agreement:

¶126

“6. The Party of the Second Part hereby agreed that they will not distribute, exhibit or exploit the the Telugu dubbed/remade version of the said picture in any other areas other than the allotted areas to them under this agreement.

¶127

The Party of the Second Part is entitled to sublease, to appoint distributors district-wise or otherwise for the territories granted to them during and for the period under this agreement, including the 16mm rights of the Telugu dubbed/remade version. However, the Party of the Second Part will also be responsible for the due adherence for the terms of this agreement.

¶128

8.The Party of the Second Part has the right to exploit the Telugu dubbed/remade version of the said picture in the Television in Andhra Pradesh only and the Party of the First Part has the right over the Tamil version of the said picture for exploitation in Television even in Andhra Pradesh.”

¶129

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶130

¶131

As per the above said clauses of Ex.P1/agreement, the plaintiff has exclusive right to exploit Telugu dubbed/remade version of the picture “ROJA” in the Television in Andhra Pradesh only and the second defendant, being the original producer and copyright holder to make Telugu dubbed version of the said movie, entitled to make any number of Telugu dubbed prints as and when required by the plaintiff. The plaintiff after dubbing the said film into Telugu, got certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification dated 20.11.1992 under Ex.P2, wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff is the producer of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA”. The Film Publicity Clearance Committee of the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce has also issued a clearance certificate under Ex.P3 in respect of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA”. The plaintiff, under Ex.P4/agreement dated 25.01.1993 has permitted the third defendant in both the Suits to took it on lease the video recording/copying rights of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” for the purpose of viewing in television in India. A careful scrutiny of the said agreement

¶132

would disclose that the third defendant was accorded the right to reproduce the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” on video cassettes and distribute the same for the purpose of viewing in television in India and the consideration was fixed at Rs.1,62,000/-. The second defendant, under Ex.P11/letter dated 04.11.1992 has informed M/s.Vijaya Colour Lab that they have assigned the Telugu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶133

¶134

dubbing rights of the film “ROJA” in favour of the plaintiff and the Laboratory letter regarding the first copy may be issued to the plaintiff for submission to Censors. The plaintiff, after making Telugu dubbed version, has submitted the same to the Central Board of Film Certification and it was returned for compliance under Ex.P12 and the deficiencies pointed out by the CBFC have been complied with under Ex.P13.

¶135

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the third defendant was accorded permission only to produce the video cassettes of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” for the purpose of viewing through television, however clandestinely approached the second defendant and an agreement came into being under Ex.D1 dated 19.12.1994, in and by which the third defendant was accorded satellite television rights for the entire World including India for two times telecast of the film “ROJA”. The third defendant, in-turn, has entered into an agreement under Ex.D2 dated 30.09.1994, wherein he

¶136

has accorded and assigned exclusive satellite television rights for multiple telecasts or dissemination, and to adopt any method of delivery in the Asian Region during the period 02.12.1994 to 01.12.1995 of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” and the same is in gross violation of Ex.P1/agreement dated 16.06.1992, based on which it was accorded satellite rights also.

¶137

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶138

¶139

PW1 has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was exhaustively cross-examined on behalf of the first defendant in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 as well as by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 4. PW1 was the Managing Director of the plaintiff company and he has spoken about the manner in which the Telugu dubbed version would be made and he has not filed any document to show that the telecast made by the first defendant was of the voice track and dubbed version developed or made and denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has right to telecast the film in Andhra Pradesh only. PW1 would further state that for the past 30 years, he is doing the same business and in the past 18 years, he is working in the plaintiff company and he knew about Cinema, video and satellite distributions and also know copyright agreements by which rights are secured. He also knows the second defendant company. PW1 would further depose in the cross examination that he has gone through the contents of the plaint in both suits before signing it and the plaintiff

¶140

has purchased Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” and except Ex.P1/agreement, no other agreement was executed between the second defendant and the plaintiff for the film “ROJA” and as per the clauses of Ex.P1/agreement, exclusive right for dubbing/remaking of the said picture and telecasting in the areas stated in the preamble for

¶141

a period of 25 years and as per Clause No.6, the plaintiff has agreed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶142

¶143

that they will not distribute, exhibit or exploit the Telugu dubbed/remade version of the said picture in any other areas than the allotted areas to them under the agreement and further made an admission that the plaintiff do not have the right to distribute the picture in any area other than the allotted area. PW1 further admitted that he is aware of satellite television and that satellite television is not for a particular area but it covers the entire world and it can be given for a particular period and not for a particular area and subsequently, voluntarily answered that the area can also be fixed. PW1 denied the suggestion that apart from whatever right given under Ex.P1/agreement, rest of the rights including satellite rights still vest with the producer and denied that the first defendant has got any right under Ex.D1/agreement. Attention of PW1 was also drawn to Para 2 of the plaint in C.S.No.1823 of 1994, wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff has got limited copyright in respect of dubbed version of the picture “ROJA” for the aforesaid areas for a period of 25 years and PW1 answered that he do not know about this, however agreed that he

¶144

is bound by the rights given under Ex.P1/agreement. A specific question was put to PW1 as to the mention of satellite rights in Ex.P1/agreement and he answered as follows: “I agree that there is no mention of Satellite Television Rights in Ex.P1, but there is reference to television rights and that is found in clause 8 of Ex.P1/agreement. In Clause 8 of Ex.P1/agreement, it is stated

¶145

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶146

¶147

that Television rights is confined only to Andhra Pradesh. I agree that I have the right to exhibit the film in theaters and also in television only in Andhra Pradesh….. I deny the suggestion that the television rights given in Andhra Pradesh automatically excludes the Satellite Television” .

¶148

The defence projected by the contesting defendants is that the satellite right and terrestrial right is entirely different from each other and a specific right has to be conferred/assigned in respect of satellite right also and it cannot be confined to a particular area and since there is no recital or clause in Ex.P1/agreement as to the conferment of satellite right and the claim made by the plaintiff that they are having satellite right under Ex.P1 cannot be sustained and reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Raj Video

¶149

Vision v. Sun T.V. [2001-2-L.W.-232] . The facts of the case in the above cited judgment read that the Suit was filed by Raj Video Vision against Sun T.V. praying for a declaration that they are the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz., 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and TV rights for the entire world in the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” Tamil Colour and Video and television rights for entire India in the picture “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil Colour and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s limited copyrights. The defendants had filed written statements denying the averments made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶150

¶151

in the plaint and it is their claim that satellite television right is an independent right.

¶152

This Court, on a careful scrutiny of pleadings, framed five issues and Issue No.2 is whether limited copyright i.e., video rights includes TV and satellite rights and Issue No.4 is whether the defendant has acquired satellite rights in respect of the Telugu version of the film “ROJA”. During the course of arguments in the Suits, reliance was placed upon the judgments in P.Thulasidas v. K.Vasanthakumari [1991-1-LW.220], Maganlal Savani and Others v. Rupam Pictures (p) Ltd and others [AIR 2000 Bombay 416] and Laxmi Video Theatre v. State of Haryana [AIR 1993 SC 2328]. Reliance was also placed upon Sections 18(2) and 19(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and this Court has recorded findings in paras 16, 17 and 19 and it is relevant to extract the same:

¶153

“16....A reading of the said provision would make it clear that any assignment of any copyright in any work should clearly indicate the rights proposed to be assigned and hence the assignee cannot claim anything more than the rights assigned to him under the concerned agreement. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, the right assigned may be either in existing work or in future work, which may be either assigned wholly or partially, and either jointly or subject to limitation. But the rights proposed to be assigned have to be clearly indicated in the instrument of assignment. It is clear from the provisions of S. 19 of the Act that the assignment of the copyright must be in writing and the assignment

¶154

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶155

¶156

must be in clear terms stating the rights proposed to be assigned. The law has made it clear that no other mode of assignment is valid. The statute specifically provides that the assignment of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor, and thus the oral assignment is neither permissible nor valid. Unless and until the rights proposed to be assigned are clearly indicated in the written instrument of assignment, the assignee cannot make a claim in respect of a right which is not assigned. In view of S. 19(2) of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff cannot claim anything more than the rights assigned to them under the two agreements to Ex.P1 and P2 relied upon by them .

¶157

Law has made it compulsory that any assignment of copyright should be by way of a written instrument. The words “shall specify the rights assigned” employed in S. 19(2) of the Act would clearly indicate that the rights assigned in favour of the assignee should be specifically stated. The legislative intent of employing these words “specify the rights” should be only with an object to indicate that an assignee who is given a specific right cannot use more or beyond the right that is assigned to him in h is favour. Allowing an assignee of a copyright under an agreement to enlarge any right already assigned would not only be detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the assignor in respect of the rights reserved by him but also would cause infringement of the rights of the other assignees and it would also be against the very legislative intent.

¶158

The Court is unable to appreciate or countenance the above contention of the plaintiff's side for more reasons than one. The court is of the view that by making the contention, the plaintiff without requisite pleading and necessary evidence has made a feeble attempt by seeking help under some provisions of the Copyright Act. Nowhere the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that they are entitled to telecast the pictures through satellite broadcast. As stated above, the agreement under Exs.P1 and P2 relied on by the plaintiff, do not speak of any specific assignment of the said rights. Comparison of the agreements filed by the plaintiff and the defendant would clearly indicate that

¶159

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶160

¶161

what has been assigned to be plaintiff is only a limited right while what has been assigned to the defendant is an unlimited right. While making an assignment of copyright compulsorily written, the law would indicate that any assignment of a copyright should be clearly indicted in the instrument. Needless to say that an assignee of a copyright under the instrument cannot claim anything more than what has been assigned to him. Even in the agreements relied on by the plaintiff, they have treated the TV rights for overseas territories/video rights as separate rights. What has been given to the plaintiff under the said agreements was only the TV rights in overseas territories and video rights. The plaintiff is unable to show how these specific rights assigned in favour of the plaintiff under the agreements Exs.P1 and P2 were either affected or infringed. Thus it would be clear that the plaintiff who was not assigned with the satellite broadcasting right specifically has come forward to complain of infringement of that right. While cassettes are used for home TV, U-matic tapes are used for satellite broadcasting. Satellite TV broadcasting right is a separate, independent and specific right. It cannot be disputed that the satellite television different from the ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting can reach a very much larger audience than any ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting crosses many countries. Hence the Court may hasten to say that the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit, since the plaintiff cannot be permitted to say the infringement of a right which is not available to him. Having agreed upon for a restricted video right which the plaintiff themselves call as limited copyright have now come forward to state that their right includes right to exploit or telecast the pictures through satellite television. On the other hand the rights assigned to the defendant as seen from the agreements relied on by the defendant were specifically for broadcasting the films through satellite. The Court is able to see force in the contention put forth by the defendant's side that the satellite television was not even in contemplation in the year 1986, when the plaintiff has entered into Exs.P1 and P2 agreements. Now the plaintiff cannot be permitted to say that what was assigned to them under the said agreements would include satellite right also.” (emphasis supplied)

¶162

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶163

¶164

Pleadings and evidence let-in in these suits are of no help to the plaintiff for the reason that under Ex.P1/agreement, it was assigned with the right to make Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” for a particular period in respect of restricted areas and admittedly, there is no specific recital in Ex.P1/agreement that they were assigned with satellite rights also. The testimony of PW1 extracted above would also indicate that he is aware of satellite television rights and it is not for a particular area but covers the entire world and it can also be given for a particular period, though in later portion of the evidence stated that area can also be fixed. When attention of PW1 was also drawn to contents of Ex.P1, he would state that as per the clauses of the agreement/Ex.P1, plaintiff was granted exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking of the picture “ROJA” in the areas stated in the preamble for a period of 25 years.

¶165

This Court in the judgment in Raj Video Vision v. Sun T.V. [2001-2-L.W.232] , after taking note of the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, has laid down the proposition that assignment of any copyright in any work should clearly indicate the rights proposed to be assigned and hence the assignee cannot claim anything more than the rights assigned to him under the concerned agreement and

¶166

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶167

¶168

Section 19(2) of the Copyright Act also mandates that the rights assigned in favour of the assignee should be specifically stated and it would also indicate that the assignee, who is given a specific right, cannot use more or beyond the right that is assigned to him in his favour and allowing an assignee of a copyright under an agreement to enlarge any right already assigned would not only be detrimental and prejudicial interest of the assignor in respect of the rights reserved by him but also would cause infringement of the rights of the other assignees and it would also be against the very legislative intent. It has been further held in the said decision that satellite TV broadcasting is a separate, independent and specific right and it cannot be disputed that the satellite television is different from the ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting can reach a very much larger audience than any ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting crosses many countries.

¶169

Admittedly, satellite rights have not been specifically conferred to the plaintiff under Ex.P1/agreement and what was assigned to him is only the right to make Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” produced by the second defendant, who is admittedly the original copyright owner in respect of the said film. In the absence of any specific recital in the agreement as to the assigning of satellite right, the plaintiff cannot claim that the satellite right given to them https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶170

¶171

under Ex.P1 has been infringed. PW1, who is the Managing Director of plaintiff company and in the relevant field for quite number of years, admitted that there is no mention of satellite rights under Ex.P1 and also agreed that the plaintiff is having right to exploit the film for viewing only in Andhra Pradesh and denied that the rights given in Andhra Pradesh automatically includes satellite rights and therefore, this Court is of the view that unless the satellite television right is specifically conferred and assigned in favour of the plaintiff, it cannot be said or claimed that it is having such a right, which was infringed by the contesting defendants.

¶172

Therefore, Issue No.2 and 3 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and Issue No.2 and 3 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 are answered in negative against the plaintiff .

¶173

Issue No.1 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994

¶174

Under Ex.P1/agreement, the plaintiff was conferred with the sole and exclusive right to dub/remake into Telugu language the movie “ROJA” to limited areas for a period of 25 years and this Court, while answering Issue Nos.2 and 3, has given a categorical finding that satellite rights have not been specifically conferred or assigned in favour of the plaintiff. PW1, being the Managing Director of the Plaintiff company, has also admitted that as per Clauses of Ex.P1, exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu version of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶175

¶176

picture “ROJA” was given to the areas stated in the preamble for a period of 25 years. The plaintiff, on account of the right given to the second defendant under Ex.P1/agreement, in respect of the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil film “ROJA” obtained Censorship Certificate under Ex.P2 as well as Clearance Certificate under Ex.P3. In Ex.P2, it has been stated that plaintiff is the producer of the film “ROJA” Telugu colour. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that as per the agreement under Ex.P1, entered into between the second defendant and the third defendant, the third defendant was assigned with the satellite television rights for two times telecast of the full picture “ROJA” (Telugu) through satellite television and the third defendant in-turn has entered into an agreement with the fourth defendant under Ex.D2, wherein the first defendant accordingly was assigned exclusive satellite television rights or multiple telecasts or dissemination of the cinematographic film “ROJA” (Telugu) and the telecast was made by using the Telugu dubbed version made by the plaintiff and thereby the contesting defendants in collusion with each other has infringed the Telugu dubbed version of the said film. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that there is no specific averment to that effect available in the plaint in both the Suits. PW1 was specifically questioned in that regard and he answered as follows:

¶177

“I do not know whether we have filed the Telugu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶178

¶179

dubbed version of the film “Roja” done by us before this Hon'ble Court. I do not remember whether I have filed the video of the Satellite telecast of the Telugu dubbed film “Roja” by D1 and D4. It is true that only on a comparison of our script of dubbed film as well as the video of the satellite telecast done by the defendants 1 and 4, we can say whether they have violated the rights given by us. I deny the suggestion that there was no violation of our Telugu dubbed rights by defendants 1 and 4 and that is the reason why we have not produced the same.”

¶180

The plaintiff can claim copyright over the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” under Ex.P1 and it's claim is confined only to such a right.

¶181

The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff made a valiant attempt by stating that telecast done by the defendants 1 and 4 of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” is that of the plaintiff and the third defendant did not independently/separately dub the Telugu version of the said film. However, it is to be pointed out at this juncture that in the light of the categorical admission of PW1, extracted above and in the absence of any acceptable evidence as to the infringement of the copyright relating to Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” produced by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the contesting defendants had violated/infringed such a right of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is the copyright holder of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” under Ex.P1,

¶182

but at the same time holds that such a right of the plaintiff has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶183

¶184

been infringed by the contesting defendants in the absence of any acceptable evidence.

¶185

Therefore, Issue No.1 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 is answered accordingly.

¶186

Issue No.4 in C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶187

The fifth defendant came to be impleaded as party to the Suit, vide order dated 16.06.2000 in A.Nos.1801 and 1802 of 2000. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth defendant has drawn the attention of this Court to proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act and would submit that the claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation and in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the decision in Ramalingam Chettiar v. P.K.Pattabiraman and Another

¶188

[(2001) 4 SCC 96], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the scope of Section 21 of the Limitation Act and it is relevant to extract para 6 of the said decision:

¶189

“6.Learned counsel for the respondent referred the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act and on the strength thereof argued that even if the application for impleadment of State of Tamil Nadu was allowed on 11.6.1979 the said order has to be understood as if impleadment of defendant no.2 was with effect from the date of filing the suit. There is no substance in the argument. Section 21 of the Limitation Act contemplates two situations one under the substantive provision which provides that where after filing of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as

¶190

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶191

¶192

regards him, be deemed to have been brought on the day when he was added or substituted as a party in the suit. The second situation contemplated under the proviso to the substantive provision is where the court is satisfied that a new plaintiff or defendant was omitted to be added or substituted due to a mistake in good faith, the court may direct that the suit, as regards the newly added or substituted party, shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date. Thus, under the proviso, if the court is satisfied, it can direct that the suit as regards newly added or substituted plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date. In such a case, the court after substituting or adding a party in the suit is required to pass a separate/further order that the suit as regards the newly added defendant or plaintiff shall be deemed to have been instituted with effect from the date the suit was laid. Merely adding or substituting a plaintiff or defendant by the court is not enough. In the absence of any order that the impleadment of newly added or substituted party shall take effect from the date of institution of a suit, the period of limitation so far as the newly added or substituted shall run from the date of their impleadment in the suit. We have looked into the records but do not find any order having passed under the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act that the impleadment of the State of Tamil Nadu would take effect from the date of institution of the suit. In the absence of such an order by the trial court, the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 59 of the Act.”

¶193

As per the ratio laid down in the above cited decision, in the absence of any order that the impleadment of newly added or substituted party shall take effect from the date of institution of a suit, the period of limitation so far as the newly added or substituted shall run from the date of their impleadment in the suit.

¶194

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶195

¶196

The plaint in C.S.No.748 of 1997 was presented on 09.12.1997 and came to be numbered during December 1997 itself. The fifth defendant came to be impleaded, vide order dated 16.06.2000, within just six months prior to the expiry of three years. No doubt, the learned Master while ordering impleadment, did not say anything as to the date of effecting any impleadment i.e., the date of the Suit or the date of the order in terms of proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act. In the light of the fact that impleadment of the fifth defendant came to be done within three years from the date of the Suit, this Court is of the view that the Suit is not barred by limitation so far as the fifth defendant is concerned.

¶197

Therefore, Issue No.4 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 is answered in

¶198

favour of the plaintiff.

¶199

Issue No.4 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994

¶200

Admittedly, prior to institution of the Suit, the alleged

¶201

offending telecast through satellite has been made and this Court while answering Issue Nos.2 and 3 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and Issue Nos.2 and 3 in C.S.No.748 of 1997, has given a finding that the

¶202

plaintiff have not been conferred with satellite rights and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶203

¶204

absence of such a right in favour of the plaintiff, does not entitle it to get the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for.

¶205

Therefore, Issue No.4 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 is answered in negative against the plaintiff.

¶206

Issue No.6 in C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶207

Since the plaintiff has not been conferred/assigned with satellite rights in respect of the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA”, it does not have any cause of action to file the Suit and therefore, Issue No.6 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 is answered in negative against the plaintiff.

¶208

Issue No.1 in C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶209

In the light of the findings given by this Court above, it is of

¶210

the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.1 Crore towards damages. It is to be noted at this juncture that the plaintiff has failed to probablise and substantiate their case about acquirement and assignment of satellite rights and also that the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA” produced by them has been infringed by the contesting defendants. Therefore, it is not entitled to damages as claimed by them. Hence, Issue No.1 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 is answered against the plaintiff.

¶211

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶212

¶213

Issue No.5 in C.S.No.748 of 1997

¶214

In the light of the findings given in Issue No.1 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994, this Court holds that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plaintiff by telecasting the Telugu dubbed version of the film “ROJA”. Hence, Issue No.5 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 is answered against the plaintiff.

¶215

Issue No.5 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and Issue No.7 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 41. In the light of the reasons assigned above, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in these suits. 42. In the result, both Suits are dismissed with costs. 05.01.2016 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jvm List of Witnesses: PW1 : Mr.G.Manoharan

¶216

05.01.2016

¶217

List of Exhibits:

¶218

Plaintiff's side documents:

¶219

*Sl.No.* 1.	*Exhibit* s P-1	Agreement Defendant	*Documents* between Plaintiff	*Date* and 2^nd 16.06.1992

¶220

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶221

¶222

2.	P-2	Certificate for unrestricted public exhibition granted by Central Board of Film Certification to Plaintiff (Original) 20.11.1992
3.	P-3	Clearance Certificate from Film Publicity Clearance Committee of the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce 20.11.1992
4.	P-4	Agreement between Plaintiff and 3^rd Defendant 25.01.1993
5.	P-5	Paper Publication in Andhra Jothi, Tirupathi 18.10.1992
6.	P-6	Paper Publication in Andhra Jothi, Tirupathi 27.03.1993
7.	P-7	Paper Publication 18.12.1992
8.	P-8	Telegram from Plaintiff's counsel to Defendant 07.12.1994
9.	P-9	List of Countries covered by the Footprint of Jain Satellite 08.12.1994
10.	P-10	Advertisement Tariff of the Sun TV 07.12.1994
11.	P-11	Letter from 2^ndDefendant to Vijaya Colour Labs 04.11.1992
12.	P-12	Letter issued by Central Board of Film Certification to Plaintiff 13.11.1992
13.	P-13	Letter issued by the Plaintiff to Central Board of Film Certification in a Rs.20 Stamp Paper enclosing authorization letter dated 13.11.1992 issued by the 2^ndDefendant to the Central Board of Film Certification 14.11.1992
14.	P-14	Censor Certificate issued in the name of the Plaintiff 20.11.1992
15.	P-15	Clearance Certificate issued by the Film Publicity Clearance Committee, South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce 20.11.1992
16.	P-16	Letter to Plaintiff from counsel for the Plaintiff enclosing letter dated 03.06.1996 written to E TV 07.06.1996
17.	P-17	Letter to Plaintiff from counsel for the Plaintiff enclosing letter dated 03.06.1996 written by the 2^nd Defendant's counsel 22.06.1996

¶223

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶224

¶225

18.	P-18	Letter written by Plaintiff's counsel to Plaintiff enclosing the legal notice dated 26.12.1996 issued to E TV 27.12.1996
19.	P-19	Letter from Plaintiff's counsel to Plaintiff enclosing the reply received from E TV dated 25.06.1996 28.06.1996
20.	P-20	Letter from E TV to Plaintiff's counsel 25.06.1996
21.	P-21	Letter from Vijaya Colour Labs to the Plaintiff 28.04.2007
22.	P-22	Letter from Plaintiff to Vijaya Colour Labs 08.05.2007
23.	P-23	Letter from 2^ndDefendant to Vijaya Colour Labs (copy marked to Plaintiff) 22.05.2007
24.	P-24	Letter from Central Board of Film Certification to Plaintiff 14.03.2008
25.	P-25	Letter from Plaintiff's counsel to counsel for Defendants 1, 4 & 5 24.10.2007
26.	P-26	Letter from Plaintiff's counsel to counsel for 2^nddefendant. 24.10.2007
27.	P-27	Balance Sheet of Plaintiff Company 31.06.1994

¶226

Defendants' side documents:

¶227

*Sl.No.* *Exhibit* *Documents* *Date*
s
1. D-1 Agreement between 2^ndDefendant and 3^rdDefendant 19.12.1994
2. D-2 Agreement between 4^thDefendant and 3^rdDefendant 30.09.1994
sd/.M.S.N.J
05.01.2016 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2016.

¶228

S.s/26.04.2016 COURT OFFICER

¶229

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶230

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Lahari Recording Co.Pvt.Ltd v. Jain Television

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lahari Recording Co.Pvt.Ltd v. Jain Television

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.C.Pushpalatha Vs Mr.C.Ramesh Babu

S.Murugesan Vs Kulothungan

N.Maruthuvamani Vs S.Bhagavathi Selvi

M.Chinnathambi Vs Tmt.v.Thenmozhi

S.Karunaamoorthy Vs S.Mohanasundaram B.Com Bl

P.Murugesan Vs Sybudhin