Dismissed

Susi Ganesan v. v. Elango

Madras HC6 Sept 2016OSA/103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an original side appeal against an interlocutory order regarding copyright infringement. As no defense was filed by the appellant since 2009, the matter was remanded to the Single Judge to inquire why the appellant should not be proceeded against.

What did the court decide?

The original side appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge to inquire regarding the delay in filing the defense.

Susi Ganesan Vs v. Elango — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.09.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

O.S.A.No.103 of 2009

¶7

1.Susi Ganesan 2.Devi Sri Prasad Music Director. 3.Kalaipuli S.Thaanu ... Appellants/Defendants -Vs1.V.Elango ... 1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.M.Vivekanandhan @ Viveka (R-2 impleaded vide order of Court dt.29.06.2009 in MP.2/2009) ... 2nd Respondent Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.04.2009 passed in O.A.No.21 of 2009 in C.S.No.36 of 2009 on the original side of this Court. For Appellants : M/s.R.Maheswari For Respondents -1 : Mr.G.Saravanakumar For R2 : Mr.J. Ravikumar* J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶8

The appeal is only qua the interlocutory stage and no interim orders were granted. Prima facie case has been established as per the impugned order qua infringement of copy right of the literary works. On our query, we are told that the appellants have not even filed their written statement as yet.

¶9

2.We, thus, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶10

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

¶11

3.Original Side Appeal, thus, stands dismissed.

¶12

4.The suit being one of the year 2009 and no written statement being filed, the same be placed before the learned Single Judge as to why the appellant / defendant should not be proceeded against further having not filed any defence since 2009, on 19.09.2016.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
dt. 09/09/2016

¶14

Corrected as per the order of this Court dated 4.11.2016 and made in OSA.No.103 of 2009 Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) dt. 10.11.16 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Substituted order to go Original Side, Madras High Court, already despatched on Chennai. 19/09/2016 (C.S. Posted before the Court concerned on 19.09.2016) +1cc to Mr.M.Murugan, Advocate, S.R.No.50984 + 1 cc to Mr. G. Saravanakumar, Advocate Sr.62981 + 1 cc to Mr.J. Ravikumar, Advocate SR.63051

¶15

O.S.A.No.103 of 2009 CTK(CO) CA(09/09/2016) EU 10.11.2016

¶16

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

Susi Ganesan v. v. Elango

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susi Ganesan v. v. Elango

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

K.Aswin Kumar @ Vs K.R.Ramaswamy @

C.Thangaraj Vs Government of Tamilnadu

S.P.Arunagiri, Vs the District Collector

M/S.Navaneethaam Traders Vs Smt.Rosary Krishnamurthy

National Highways Authority Vs Larsen and Toubro Limited

The Salem Textiles Limited Vs C.Balasubramanian IPS Retd