Dismissed

M/S 7TH Channel Communication, v. Mr Roja Combines

Madras HC16 Mar 2018CS/168/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three civil suits concerning copyright in the Telugu version of the film Vettaiyadu Vilayadu. The parties entered a Memorandum of Compromise on 16.03.2018. The Court recorded the compromise, declared copyright ownership and rights assignment, and dismissed the suits against specific defendants while ordering the issuance of decrees for the withdrawal of deposited funds.

What did the court decide?

Common judgment and decree passed based on Memorandum of Compromise; suits dismissed against given-up defendants; decree issued to enable withdrawal of deposited sums as per compromise terms.

M/S 7TH Channel Communication, Vs Mr Roja Combines — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 16.03.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

C.S.Nos.168, 683 and 691 of 2006 and O.A.No.721 of 2006 and A.No.3959 of 2008

¶7

C.S.No.168 of 2006

¶8

M/s.7^th Channel Communications, represented by its Proprietor Mr.Manicam Marayanan No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. .. Plaintiff Vs. 1.M/s.Roja Combines Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.M.Kaja Mydeen, No.4-A, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. 2.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor Mr.D.Raj Varma 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3.M/s.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance 39/6, Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. 4.M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034. 5.Mr.V.R.S.Prasad, 11-A, Thiagaraya Road T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

6.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories No.58, Arunachalam Road Chennai 600 093.

¶12

.. Defendants

¶13

This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. Read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Section 55 of the Copy Right Act, 1994 praying to

¶14

a) declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the copy right pertaining to the Telegu Version of the Tamil Colour Film titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu;

¶15

b) mandatory injunction, directing the sixth-defendant to deliver the prints of the Telegu Version of the Tamil Colour Film titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu to the plaintiff;

¶16

c) grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from infringing or interfering with the absolute copy right of the plaintiff over the Telugu Version of the Tamil Colour Film Vettaiyadu Vilayadu;

¶17

d) for costs of the suit and

¶18

e) such further relief or reliefs, as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

For Plaintiff : Mr.Sai Krishnan
for M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan
For Defendants : Mr.Aditya for
M/s.OJAS Law Firm for D4
Mr.P.L.Narayanan for D5
D1, D2, D3 and D6 – given up

¶20

C.S.No.683 of 2006

¶21

Mr.V.Ramakrishna Proprietor M/s.S.S.Communications, No.18/26, Elegant Apartment Hindi Parchar Sabha, Chennai – 17 .. Plaintiff

¶22

Vs.

¶23

1.Mr.Manicam Narayanan Proprietor M/s.7^th Channel Communications, Mr.Manicam Marayanan No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

2.Mr.Kaja Mydeen Proprietor

¶27

M/s.Roja Combines No.4 – A, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83

¶28

3.D.Raaj Varma

¶29

Proprietor

¶30

M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises Plot No.413, 2^nd floor, road No.22 Jubilee hils, Hydrebad – 500 033.

¶31

4.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories

¶32

No.58, Arunachalam Road, Chennai – 93. ... Defendants

¶33

This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. Read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Sections 55 and 64 of the Copy Right Act, 1994 praying to

¶34

a) for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the satellite, video, cable, Doordarshan, Pay TV, DTH, Internet, VCD, DVD and any other television and electronic media rights etc of the copy right pertaining to the Telugu version of the Tamil Colour Film titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu;

¶35

b) for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the overseas theatrical and video rights of the copy right pertaining to the Telugu version of the Tamil colour film titled Vettaiyadu Viliyadu;

¶36

c) for permanent injunction restraining all the defendants from alienating or selling the satellite, video, cable, Doordarshan, pay TV, DTH, Internet, VCD, DVD etc of the film Maghadeera the Telugu version of the Tamil film Vettaiyadu Vilayadu to any third parties.

¶37

d) to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶38

For Defendants : Mr.Sai Krishnan

¶39

for M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan for D1 D2, D3 and D4- given up

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

¶42

C.S.No.691 of 2006

¶43

Mr.V.R.S.Prasad, No.11-A, Thiagaraya Road T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶44

.. Plaintiff

¶45

Vs.

¶46

1.Mr.Kaja Mydeen Proprietor M/s.Roja Combines No.4 – A, 10^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83 2.Mr.D.Raj Verma, Proprietor, M/s.Sri.Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.D.Raj Verma, No.1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3.Mr.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor, M/s.7^th Channel Communications, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶47

4.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories No.58, Arunachalam Road, Chennai – 93.

¶48

5.M/s.S.S.Communication, Plot No.8-2-469, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034. ... Defendants

¶49

This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. Read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Sections 55, 56 and 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1994 praying to

¶50

a) declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute copyright owner having perpetual rights of the suit picture Telugu Version of the Tamil Colour Film titled Vettaiyadu Vilaiyadu staring Kamalhassan directed by Gautham inclusive of dubbing and remaking rights in Telugu Language and all other

¶51

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶52

¶53

consequential rights flowing out of the said Telugu version excluding the satellite territory of the said Telugu version of the suit film;

¶54

b) granting permanent injunction restraining the first, second and third defendants, their agents, servants, each and every person or persons claiming through them or under them from interfering or infringing with the plaintiff's copy rights of the suit film Telugu Version of the Tamil colour Film titled Vettaiyadu Vilaiyadi staring Kamalhassan directed by Gautham inclusive of dubbing and remaking rights in Telugu Language and all other consequential rights flowing out of the said Telugu version excluding the satellite territory of the said Telugu version of the Tamil film Vettaiyadu Vilaiyadu;

¶55

c) for costs of the suit.

¶56

For Plaintiff : Mr.P.L.Narayanan
For Defendants : Mr.Sai Krishnan
for M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan for D3
Mr.Aditya for
M/s.OJAS Law Firm for D5
D1, D2 and D4- given up
COMMON JUDGMENT

¶57

This will be a common judgment and decree in the aforesaid three suits

¶58

i.e., C.S.No.168 of 2006, C.S.No.683 of 2006 and C.S.No.691 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, C.S.No.168 of 2006 is referred to as 'senior suit',

¶59

C.S.No.683 of 2006 is referred to as 'first junior suit' and C.S.No.691 of 2006 is

¶60

referred to as 'second junior suit'.

¶61

In each of the suits, plaintiff has given up some of the defendants,

¶62

the details of which are contained in a Memorandum of Compromise, which has been reproduced infra.

¶63

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶64

¶65

Parties in this common judment and decree are referred to by their respective ranks in the senior suit i.e., C.S.No.168 of 2006, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶66

Mr.Sai Krishnan of M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan, Law Firm, on record for plaintiff is before this Commercial Division and his client Mr.Manicam Narayanan, is before this Commercial Division. As far as 4^th defendant S.S.Communications is concerned, I am informed that the same is a Proprietary concern, the Proprietor Mr.V.Rama Krishna, is present before this Commercial Division and his counsel Mr.Aditya of M/s.OJAS Law Firm is before this Commercial Division. Defendant No.5, Mr.V.R.S.Prasad is an individual, he is before this Commercial Division and his counsel Mr.P.L.Narayanan is before this Commercial Division.

¶67

The above array of counsel and their respective clients completes

¶68

presence of all the parties in all the three suits i.e., senior suit, first junior

¶69

suit and second junior suit put together after giving up of some defendants in each of the suits, the details of which are contained in a Memorandum of Compromise that has been extracted and reproduced infra.

¶70

All the aforesaid three counsel submit that the parties have entered

¶71

into a Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018. The Memorandum of

¶72

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶73

¶74

Compromise dated 16.03.2018, duly signed by all the aforesaid parties and their respective counsel, has been placed before me. I deem it appropriate to

¶75

extract the terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of Compromise, which reads as follows:

¶76

“The parties to the suits in C.S.No.168 of 2006, C.S.No.683 of 2006 and C.S.No.691 of 2006 have arrived at a settlement which is recorded by way of this Memorandum of Compromise.

¶77

In so far as the suit in C.S.No.168 of 2006 is concerned, the plaintiff in C.S.No.168 of 2006 gives up the 1^st , 2^nd , 3^rd and 6^th defendants and the suit against them may be dismissed.

¶78

In so far as C.S.No.683 of 2006 is concerned, the plaintiff gives up the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th defendants and the suit against them may be dismissed.

¶79

In so far as C.S.No.691 of 2006 is concerned, the plaintiff gives up the 1^st , 2^nd and 4^th defendants and the suit against them may be dismissed.

¶80

That it is hereby agreed:

¶81

1) That the plaintiff in C.S.No.168 of 2006 is hereby declared as the sole and absolute owner of the copyrights pertaining to the Telugu version of the Tamil color film, titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu and the said right in respect of all the theatrical rights in India other than those that are listed in the paragraph below, shall vest with the plaintiff in C.S.No.168 of 2006, for perpetuity.

¶82

2) That the plaintiff in C.S.No.683 of 2006, Mr.V.Ramakrishna, Proprietor, M/s.S.S.Communications is the sole and absolute assignee and as such entitled to the satellite rights, television rights, digital and electronic media rights for

¶83

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶84

¶85

the entire world including India and the overseas theatrical and overseas video rights of the copyright pertaining to the Telugu version of the Tamil color film, titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu subsequently released in Telugu under the title Raaghavan, for perpetuity.

¶86

3) That the plaintiff in C.S.No.168 of 2006 Mr.Manickam Narayanan, Proprietor, 7^th Channel Communications is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) from out of the amounts deposited by the plaintiff in C.S.No.683 of 2006 lying to the credit of the suit in C.S.No.683 of 2006 pursuant to the order dated 12.09.2008 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.A.No.80 of 2007.

¶87

4) That the plaintiff in C.S.No.691 of 2006, Mr.M.V.R.S.Prasad shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) from and out of the amounts deposited by the plaintiff in C.S.No.683 of 2006, lying to the credit of the suit in C.S.No.683 of 2006 pursuant to the order dated 12.09.2008 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.A.No.80 of 2007, in full and final settlement of all his claims in respect of the copyrights in the Telugu version of the Tamil color film, titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu.

¶88

5) That the plaintiff in C.S.No.683 of 2006, Mr.V.Ramakrishna, Proprietor, S.S.Communications shall be entitled to withdraw the entire balance amount from the amounts deposited by the plaintiff in C.S.No.683 of 2006, lying to the credit of the suit in C.S.No.683 of 2006 pursuant to the order dated 12.09.2008 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.A.No.80 of 2007, including the interest that has accrued in the said account and he undertakes the responsibility and liability to meet any claims that may be made by Mr.D.Raj Varma, Proprietor, M/s.Venkateswara Cine Enterprises and/or any other persons

¶89

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶90

¶91

claiming through him including one Mr.C.Venkatraju, Proprietor – Gita Chitra International (who has filed suit in C.S.No.741 of 2006) in respect of the Telugu version copyrights of the Tamil color film, titled Vettaiyadu Vilayadu, which was subsequently released as “Raghavan” in Telugu.

¶92

6) The plaintiff in C.S.No.168 of 2006 shall stand discharged of his duties and obligations as a Receiver as per the order of his appointment by order dated 13.07.2007 in O.S.A.Nos.80,125, 127, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 344 of 2006 of this Hon'ble Court and as modified by order dated 26.07.2007 in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 in O.S.A.No.80 of 2007. The Bank Guarantee for Rs.50,00,000/- furnished by the plaintiff in C.S.No.168 of 2006 in compliance of the said orders dated 13.07.2007 and 26.07.2007 shall stand discharged/cancelled.

¶93

7) This compromise shall govern the suits in C.S.No.168 of 2006, 683 of 2006 and 691 of 2006 and the parties pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decree the above suits in terms of this Memorandum of Compromise and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice.”

¶94

With regard to giving up of some of the defendants in each of the

¶95

suits, learned counsel on record for plaintiff in each of the three suits has

¶96

made suitable endorsement in the suit file in this regard. Endorsement made by the counsel on record for plaintiff in the senior suit, reads as follows:

¶97

“The plaintiff in C.S.168/2006 may be permitted to give up the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the suit. Suit against them may be dismissed.”

¶98

Endorsement made by the counsel on record for plaintiff in the first junior

¶99

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶100

¶101

suit, reads as follows:

¶102

“The plaintiff in C.S.No.683 of 2006 gives up the 2^nd , 3^rd , and 4^th defendants and the suit against them may be dismissed.”

¶103

Endorsement made on behalf of the counsel on record for the plaintiff in the

¶104

second junior suit, reads as follows:

¶105

“This Hon'ble Court may give the 1^st , 2^nd & 4^th defendants and may pass order accordingly”.

¶106

In the light of the aforesaid endorsement, in the senior suit i.e., C.S.No.168 of 2006, defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 are given up and suit is dismissed against them, in the first junior suit i.e. C.S.No.683 of 2006, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are given up and suit is dismissed against them and in the second junior suit i.e., C.S.No.691 of 2006, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 are given up and suit is dismissed against them.

¶107

The litigants present before this Court confirm and reiterate the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise. All the three counsel, on instructions from their respective clients make a request to this Commercial Division that a common judgment and decree be passed in all the three suits in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018.

¶108

Before doing so, it is necessary to clarify with regard to clause 1 of

¶109

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶110

¶111

Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018, extracted and reproduced supra that the rights of the plaintiff in senior suit may be a right in rem, but these three suits being action in personam, all rights that accrue in favour of the plaintiff in the senior suit will be enforceable only against the parties to this decree. As far as this judgment and decree are concerned, if the plaintiff has any claim qua these rights against individuals or entities other than those who are parties to these three suits, plaintiff will have to initiate separate

¶112

proceedings and this decree will not come in the way.

¶113

Having made the aforesaid clarification, in the light of the submissions made and in the light of the Memorandum of Compromise extracted and reproduced supra, there shall be a common judgment and decree in all the three suits i.e., senior suit, first junior suit and second junior suit in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018. The aforesaid Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018, shall form part of the compromise decree in each of the three suits.

¶114

With regard to clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018, as it pertains to withdrawal of certain sums of money lying to the credit of the first junior suit i.e., C.S.No.683 of 2006, a request is made that there may be a direction to the Registry to issue these decrees within a fortnight. I accede to the prayer. It is set out infra.

¶115

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶116

¶117

The judgments and decrees in all these three suits shall be issued within a fortnight and when payment out applications are taken out in accordance with clauses 3, 4 and 5 supra, the same shall be processed and

¶118

moneys due shall be paid out after following applicable/operating procedures within a fortnight from the date of issue of certified copies of judments and

¶119

decrees.

¶120

All these three suits are disposed of on above terms. To be noted,

¶121

the aforesaid Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2018 has been placed before me in triplicate. In other words, there are three Memorandum of Compromises with identical clauses, all of which have been duly signed by the aforesaid parties and their respective counsel. One Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the Judgment and decree in each of the suits. No costs. Consequently, connected pending applications shall stand closed.

¶122

16.03.2018

¶123

Speaking/Non-Speaking order Index : Yes/No vsm

¶124

Note: Registry shall issue judgment and decree on or before 28.03.2018.

¶125

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶126

¶127

M.SUNDAR, J. vsm

¶128

C.S.Nos.168, 683 and 691 of 2006
and O.A.No.721 of 2006
and A.No.3959 of 2008
16.03.2018

¶129

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S 7TH Channel Communication, v. Mr Roja Combines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S 7TH Channel Communication, v. Mr Roja Combines

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

M/s Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs Sree Keerthi Bhavan

M/S V.V.V & sons Edible Oils Vs M/s S.G.R (777) Foods Pvt.

M/S.Blue Star Limited Vs East Coast Construction and

Microsense Pvt.Ltd. Vs Bharthi Airtel Ltd.

Avm Film Studios Vs K.S.Sabarinathan and 3 others

Mrs.Bharathi, Vs The Commissioner