This appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for injunction regarding satellite rights. The court found the appellant failed to establish that two differently titled films were the same work, holding the identity issue required trial.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
O.S.A.No.21 of 2018
and CMP.No.1072 of 2018
M/s.M.K.Enterprises
Rep by A.Kumar, Partner
No.7, I Floor, 7 th Street
Shenoy Nagar
Chennai – 600 030. .. Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Balaji Real Media Pvt Ltd.,
Rep by its Director Thandra Ramesh
No.41, Manaswi Apartments
Marudham Street, Fathima Nagar
Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.
2.Balaji Colour Laboratories
Film Nagar
Road No.2, Jublee Hills
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 096. .. Respondent/Defendants
Prayer : Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Amended Letters Patent 1865, to set aside the impugned order dated 08.6.2017 made in Application No.2867/2017 in C.S.No.372/2017 by allowing the above appeal with costs.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Chidambaram For Respondents : Mr.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.K.C.Krishnamoorthy
JUDGEMENT
[Order of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE,J.]
The plaintiff/applicant in O.A.No.2867 of 2017 in C.S.No.372 of 2017 had come before this Court challenging the Order of the
learned Single Judge dated 08.06.2017, dismissing its application seeking a grant of injunction.
versions of above referred to movie.
for vacating the injunction, and submitted that the first respondent has retained the lead cast, changed the storyline/script, the Director and the Music Director of the movie, and that the one which has gone for production has little to do with “Production No.5.” The movie “Aaradugula Bullet” was originally commenced as “Production No.4” and except the lead cast, there is nothing in common between the two productions. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the appellant founded on a presumption that “Production No.5” and “Aaradugula Bullet” are the same is without any factual basis.
6.This Court finds considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. Prima facie, it is necessary for the appellant to establish that the cinematography production which commenced production as “Production No.5” is one that emerged ultimately as ““Aaradugula Bullet” are the same. It is not sufficient at this stage to presume that merely because the lead cast and the producer are the same, the cinematography work is also the same. Whether “Production No.5 and “Aaradugula Bullet” are the same is a matter for trial and this Court refrains from making an opinion on this.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar TO:
The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
+2cc to Mr.K.C.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate sr.no.75962 +1cc to Mr.A.Chidambaram, Advocate sr.no.75201
O.S.A.No.21 of 2018 rsi(co) nr 02/01/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant had established that the cinematography production originally titled "Production No.5" is the same as the film titled "Aaradugula Bullet".
Whether a mere change in director and music score while retaining lead cast negates the identity of the original work for the purpose of copyright assignment.
M/s. M.K. Enterprises
Balaji Real Media Pvt Ltd.
Balaji Colour Laboratories
M. SATHYANARAYANAN
N. SESHASAYEE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
