Allowed

Sree Devi Corporation v. Mrs v.Sagunthala

Madras HC2 Aug 2019CS/350/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Sree Devi Video Corporation seeking a declaration of copyright ownership and a permanent injunction against defendants accused of infringing film copyrights assigned to the plaintiff via agreements dated September 2005.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed granting a declaration of absolute ownership of copyrights and a permanent injunction against infringement with costs.

Sree Devi Corporation Vs Mrs v.Sagunthala — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.08.2019

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶7

Sree Devi Video Corporation
Rep.by its Manager Mr.J.Dayalan,
No.73, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1.V.Sagunthala
2.C.R.rajoo
3.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories
No.58, (Old No.22) Arunachalam Road,
Saligramam, Chennai – 600 092.

¶8

4.M/s.Gemini Colour Laboratory
No.2, Vembuli Amman Koil Street,
Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 078.

¶9

5.M/s.Vijaya Colour Laboratories, No.9-A, Kumaran Colony Main Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026.

¶10

6.M/s.A.V.M.Cine Lab 7, N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. ...Defendants

¶11

This Civil Suit is filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 r/w. order IV Rule 1 O.S Rules and Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for a judgment and decree, as against the defendants; a) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyrights viz., Entire video copyrights, VCD rights, DVD rights

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

1/8

¶14

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶15

etc., cable TV copyrights, Web/Internet copyrights, Exhibition and rights to communicate to the public in any manner for entire India and its Union Territories etc., in the schedule mentioned films as per the agreement dated 12.09.2005 & 27.09.2005 for perpetual period; b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or assigns from in any manner infringing the limited copyrights viz., Entire video copyrights, VCD rights, DVD rights etc., cable TV copyrights, Web/Internet copyrights, Exhibition and rights to communicate to the public in any manner for entire India and its Union Territories etc., in the films described in the schedule to the plaint in any manner whatsoever; c) For costs of the suit.

¶16

The plaintiff is a Partnership Firm registered under the Partnership

¶17

Act, represented by its Manager, Mr.J.Dayalan. The plaintiff is in the business of acquiring copyrights in Cinematography films and exploiting the same in various territories throughout the world. The first defendant is the producer/negative rights holder and the owner of all copyrights in various Tamil Films, which are described in the schedule to the plaint. The

¶18

first defendant is the sole legal heir of Mr.Venkatraman, who was the original producer of the Schedule mentioned films.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

2/8

¶21

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶22

Today (02.08.2019), when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is present.

¶23

The learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly submitted that the 2^nd defendant claimed to have acquired the rights in the Schedule mentioned films from the original producer, late Mr.Venkatraman. During the course of business, the plaintiff had acquired various copyrights viz., Entire video copyrights, VCD rights, DVD rights etc., cable TV copyrights, Web/Internet copyrights, Exhibition and rights to communicate to the public in any manner for entire India and its Union Territories from the 1st defendant in various films detailed in the schedule to the plaint under an agreement dated 12.09.2005 for valuable consideration and by way of abundant caution also acquired the same copyrights from the 2nd defendant in various films detailed in the schedule to the plaint under an agreement dated 27.09.2005 for valuable consideration. He further submitted that the agreement dated 12.09.2005 was marked as Ex.P1 through PW.1 and agreement dated 27.09.2005 was marked as Ex.P2 though PW.1.

¶24

3.1 He would further submit that from the date of acquiring the said

¶25

rights, the plaintiff has been exploiting the same by releasing Video CDs, DVD's, Telecasting in Web Internet, Cable Television, Exhibition and Communication to the Public etc. The defendants 3 to 6 are the

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

3/8

¶28

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶29

Laboratories with whom the negatives of the schedule mentioned films are kept for safe custody/storage.

¶30

3.2 The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further submit that the plaintiff recently came to know that several pirated VCD's, DVD's and cable operators have been exploiting the pictures, whose copyright is vested with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is objecting to the exploitation made by the pirated VCD's, DVD's and cable operators but in vain. He would further submit that the negative right holders of the schedule films are illegally exploiting the copyrights which have already been assigned to the plaintiff under agreements dated 12.09.2005 and 27.09.2005 thereby committing infringement of the plaintiff's valuable copyrights.

¶31

3.3 The learned counsel would further submit that the defendants 1

¶32

and 2 who are the producers/negative right holders of the schedule mentioned films were the absolute owners of the copyright in the said films and without the consent and assignment of any rights from the negative right holders, such an infringement cannot take place. Hence, the plaintiff has no other remedy but to file the present suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyrights as mentioned in the agreements dated 12.09.2005 and 27.09.2005. He would also submit that on 12.09.2005, the first defendant has assigned

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

4/8

¶35

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶36

the copyrights to the plaintiff by an agreement and on 27.09.2005 the second defendant has assigned the copyrights to the plaintiff by way of an agreement. He would also submit that the defendants 3 to 6 hold the negatives of the schedule mentioned films, where on various dates, the defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents, assigns or persons acting on their behalf have infringed the copyrights assigned to the plaintiff by re-selling the same or allowing the same to be exploited by pirated VCD, DVD and

¶37

Cable Operators.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the materials available on record. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 have been marked. All the defendants were set exparte.

¶39

This Court has perused the documents and also the proof

¶40

affidavit filed by PW.1. As per Ex.P1, the first defendant has assigned the copyrights to the plaintiff and as per Ex.P2, the second defendant has assigned the copyrights to the plaintiff. Therefore, as per Exs.P1 and P2, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of all the copyrights in the said films and without the consent and assignment of any rights from the negative right holders, such an infringement cannot take place and except the plaintiff, no other person can use the copyrights and schedule mentioned

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

5/8

¶43

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶44

films. The defendants 3 to 6 are holding the negatives of the schedule mentioned films.

¶45

In such of the view, several pirated VCD's, DVD's and cable operators have been exploiting the pictures, whose copyright is vested with the plaintiff. Therefore, the contentions of the plaintiff are that, without the consent of the original copyrights producers/negative right holders namely defendants 1 and 2, the defendants 3 to 6 will not release the Entire video copyrights, VCD rights, DVD rights, cable TV copyrights, Web/Internet copyrights etc., including Exhibition and rights to communicate to the public, in any manner for entire India and its Union Territories.

¶46

This Court is of the view that the plaintiff has the entire rights by virtue of the assignment agreements dated 12.09.2005 and 27.09.2005. Therefore, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of all the copyrights of the schedule mentioned films. Therefore, the defendants will not have any right to exploit the pictures, whose copyright is vested with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved his case and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to relief's as prayed for.

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

6/8

¶49

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶50

In the result, this suit is decreed as above with costs.

¶51

02.08.2019

¶52

kv Index : Yes/No

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶54

7/8

¶55

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶56

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., kv

¶57

C.S.No.350 of 2007

¶58

02.08.2019

¶59

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶60

8/8

Sree Devi Corporation v. Mrs v.Sagunthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Devi Corporation v. Mrs v.Sagunthala

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.Mahalaxmi and Sons Vs Photon Kathaas Productions

M/S.Indigo Business and Another Vs M/S.Focal Merchandising (India) Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Others

K.K.Rajan and Another Vs M/S.Vidhya Industries

T.Pitchamuthu Vs Sakthi

K.Venkateswara Rao Vs Kvr English Coachin Centre

M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Vs Sri Amman Oil Mill