The plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit filed under the Copyright Act and CPC withdrew the suit. The court dismissed the suit as withdrawn with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S.No.659 of 2018
and
O.A.Nos.893 & 894 of 2018
Viacom 18 Media Private Limited
Suit 410, 411 Appejay Business Centre,
Appejay House,
39/12 Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006
Represented by Senior Executive – Legal
Mr.Manas Gaur .. Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd
5 th Floor, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Sadan,
9, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
3. Bharti Airtel Limited
Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, Phase II,
New Delhi 110 070
4. Aircel Cellular Limited,
5th floor, Spencer Plaza,
769 Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600002.
2
3
4
India
My Home Sarovar Plaza,
Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500004
5
6
7
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule – 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order IV Rule 1 of O.S Rules, 1956 Read with Sections 51,52,55 and 62 The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 and Section 7 of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, No 4 of 2016 – Suit for Permanent Injunction for the Infringement of Copyright seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 37 from and any other person or entity infringing the cinematographic film “DHH” and said work be directed to block all websites/web pages including websites mentioned in Schedule-A hosting contents that relate to Plaintiff's copyright protected cinematographic film “DHH” in any manner, thereby restraining the unauthorised copying, transmission, communication or make available or display or release or show or upload or download or exhibit or play and/or in any manner communicate in and/or through their services immediate of receipt of details of such infringing websites/webpages in writing from the plaintiff or its authorised representative in any manner whatsoever; permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 38-42 and any other person or entity infringing the cinematographic film “DHH” by themselves, their partners/proprietor/directors, heirs, representatives, successors in business, assigns, distributors, agents, servants or anyone claiming through them or under them from infringing the Plaintiff's copyrighted cinematographic film “DHH” by copying, recording, reproducing or allowing camcording or allowing others to transmit, communicate or make available or distributing or duplicating or displaying or releasing or showing or uploading or downloading or exhibiting or playing and/or in any manner whatsoever from communicating the cinematographic film “DHH” and said work without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the Plaintiff's copyrighted cinematographic film “DHH” through different mediums including but not limited to CD,DVD,Blu-ray disc, VCD, cable TV, Direct to home services, internet services, multimedia messaging services, pen drives, hard drives, tapes, DAS satellite, Conditional Access Systems or in any other medium/manner whatsoever and for costs.
For Plaintiff : Mr. Arun C. Mohan
For Defendants : Mr.K.Venkatesan for D37 and D42
Mr.S.Surendran for D42
8
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that plaintiff has given
instructions for withdrawal of the suit. Saying so, learned counsel has made
an endorsement in the suit file which reads as follows:
'Upon written instructions received from the plaintiff,
we hereby withdraw the suit. The plaintiff does not insist on
refund of court fees.
-sd/-
(Counsel for Plaintiff)
09.11.2018'
endorsement and submit that the plaintiff does not insisting on refund of court fees.
reiteration of the same today before this Court, this suit is dismissed as
withdrawn. Consequently, all interlocutory applications are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
09.11 . 2018
Index : Yes/No
gpa/mp
9
M.SUNDAR, J.
gpa/mp
C.S.No.659 of 2018
and O.A.Nos.893 & 894 of 2018
09.11 . 2018
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd
Bharti Airtel Limited
M.SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
