Allowed

Messrs Sri Devi Video v. Avm Cine Lab

Madras HC9 Aug 2019CS/918/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras decreed a suit for copyright infringement by a video corporation against a film laboratory and its officer. The court held the plaintiff was the copyright owner based on assignments from the producer's wife with legal heir consent. The defendant was directed to register the plaintiff and remove others from record.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for declaration of ownership and mandatory injunction directing defendant to register plaintiff as copyright holder and remove other names from record.

Messrs Sri Devi Video Vs Avm Cine Lab — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.08.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

C.S.No.918 of 2016
and
O.A.No.1098 of 2016
Messrs Sri Devi Video Corporation,
Rep.by its Partner,
Ghanshyam Hemdev,
Old No.3, New No.5, Muktha Gardens,
Supur Tank Road,
Chetpet,
Chennai – 600 031. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.AVM Cine Lab,
Rep.by its Officer, P.Vasanthan,
No.7, N.S.K. Road,
Chennai – 600 026.
2.P.M.Shanthi,
No.22, Sri Ram Nagar Main Road,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600 041. ... Defendants

¶7

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Order IV

¶8

Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side Rules praying for:

¶9

(a) A declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyrights in the suit scheduled films;

¶10

(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or persons

¶11

1/10

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶14

acting on their behalf or claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyrights by taking prints or by exploiting any copyrights in the schedule mentioned films and

¶15

(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from parting with the negatives in favour of any other third parties for any kind of exploitation of the suit films.

¶16

(d) For mandatory injunction directing first defendant to provide negatives of suit schedule films for the purpose of making master copies.

¶17

(e) For costs of the suit

¶18

(f) For such further or other belief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶19

For Defendants : Set ex-parte vide order dated 09.07.2019

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction and such other reliefs more fully described in the prayer portion of this judgment.

¶22

2/10

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶25

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff is in the business of acquiring, distributing and exploiting copyrights in Tamil and other South Indian cinematography films, serials and television programmes. During the course of its business, the plaintiff acquired the entire copyrights in the Tamil cinematography films titled “Murugan Kaattiya Vazhi”, “Pallotti Valarttha Kili”, “Ponnukku Thanga Manasu” and “Raman Etthanai Ramanadi” under various agreements all dated 06.05.2009 from the second defendant who is the wife of the original producer of the scheduled mentioned films. The second defendant had obtained the consent of the other legal heirs for dealing with the copyrights in the films produced by her husband late P.Madhavan and the said legal heirs have also confirmed the assignment made by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff by affidavit dated 28.09.2012.

¶26

It is further submitted that from the date of acquiring

¶27

the copyrights in the scheduled mentioned films, the plaintiff has been exploiting the same by licensing the various copyrights in

¶28

favour of third parties and through its own exploitation in satellite televisions, terrestrial broadcasting, cable TV broadcast, web and interned exploitation of the said films. The plaintiff has also

¶29

3/10

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶32

released VCDs and DVDs of the films for private home viewing, by their letter dated 05.12.2012, the plaintiff approached the first defendant for confirming the rights assigned in favour of the plaintiff as is the usual practice in the film trade to obtain the laboratory confirmation. However, the first defendant issued a letter stating that the rights that were sought to be confirmed by the plaintiff were already transferred in favour of various other persons or entites. The plaintiff thereafter enquired with its assignors viz., the second defendant and the second defendant confirmed that she or any of her family members had not made any assignment of any of their rights that were assigned in favour of the plaintiff to any other third parties. Satisfied with the assurance given by the second defendant and other legal heirs of the late producer, the plaintiff continued the rights acquired by it by distributing the films in various media as stated herein above.

¶33

Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff, with a view to obtaining better quality prints and for making a master

¶34

copy approached the first defendant on 04.08.2016, this time with a request to enable the plaintiff to make fresh master copy from the negatives of the films that were stored at the first defendant's

¶35

4/10

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶38

laboratory. However, the plaintiff was shocked to receive a reply dated 06.08.2016 from the first defendant stating that the rights of the said pictures were transferred to various parties as per directions given to the first defendant in the past by the negative rights holder on various dates. The first defendant further stated that the second defendant was not entitled to deal with the negatives of the schedule films. It is further submitted that the reply received from the first defendant dated 06.08.2016 is vague and gives no particulars with regard to the alleged transfer of rights in favour of various parites. However, there is a clear and unequivocal refusal by the first defendant to recognize the copyrights assigned in favour of the alleged plaintiff by the second defendant and the same amounts to an infringement of the plaintiff's copyrights.

¶39

It is further submitted that the cause of action for the

¶40

suit arose at Chennai on 06.05.2009 at Nungambakkam where the plaintiff acquired the entire copyrights in the suit scheduled films from the second defendant, where on 21.11.2012 the plaintiff approached the first defendant for confirmation of rights in its favour and the first defendant refused the same, on 04.08.2016

¶41

5/10

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶44

when the plaintiff requested the first defendant for taking master prints from the negatives held by the first defendant and by letter dated 06.08.2016 when the first defendant refused to accede to the plaintiff's request. Therefore, the plaintiff, having no other option, has filed the present suit, for the aforesaid relief.

¶45

After the admission of the suit, the suit summons were served on the defendants 1 & 2 on 04.12.2017 & 13.10.2017 respectively. In spite of the service of the suit summons, the defendants failed to appear before this Court. Therefore, the defendants were set ex-parte vide order dated 09.07.2019 and the suit was directed to be placed before the learned Additional Master for recording ex-parte evidence. Before the learned Additional Master, on behalf of the plaintiff one Ghanshyam Hemdev, was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked.

¶46

It has already been set out supra that as many as 11 exhibits, namely Exs.P1 to P11 have been marked and the details of the 11 exhibits are as follows:

¶47

S.No.	Exhibits	Description of Documents
1	P1	The xerox copy of Death certificate of
		P.Madhavan dated 21.01.2004.

¶48

6/10

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶51

S.No. Exhibits	Description of Documents
2 P2	The xerox copy of the Legal heir certificate of P.Madhavan dated 08.03.2004.
3 P3	The xerox copy of the Agreement entered into between 2^nddefendant and plaintiff for picture titled Murugan Kaatiya vazhi dated 06.05.2009 (compared with original)
4 P4	The xerox copy of the Agreement entered into between the 2^nddefendant and plaintiff for picture titled 'PALOOTI VALARTHA KILI'. (compared with original)
5 P5	The copy of the Agreement entered into between 2^nddefendant and plaintiff for picture titled PONNUKU THANGA MANUSU dated 06.05.2009. (compared with original)
6 P6	The copy of the Agreement entered into between 2^nddefendant and plaintiff for picture titled RAAMAN YETANAI RAMANDI dated 06.05.2009. (compared with original)
7 P7	The copy of No objection certificate by legal heirs dated 28.09.2012. (compared with original)
8 P8	The copy of letter issued by the 1^stdefendant by plaintiff dated 05.12.2012. (compared with original)
9 P9	The copy of the reply letter issued to the plaintiff by 1^stdefendant. (compared with original)
10 P10	The copy of letter issued to the 1^stdefendant by plaintiff dated 04.08.2016. (compared with original)
11 P11	The copy of the reply letter issued to the plaintiff by the 1^st defendant dated 06.08.2016. (compared with original)

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also gone

¶53

through the averments in the plaint and the proof affidavit and also

¶54

perused Exs.P.1 to P.11.

¶55

7/10

¶56

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶57

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶58

On perusal of Exs.P3 to P6, this Court finds that the films “Murugan Kattiya Vazhi”, “Palooti Valartha Kili”, “Ponnuku Thanga Manusu”, “Raaman Yetanai Ramandi” have been sold to and in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of Exs.P3 to P6. This Court also perused Ex.P1 i.e., Death certificate of P.Madhavan, who was the producer of the said films. Further, the plaintiff also filed legal heir certificate of P.Madhavan. On perusal of legal heir certificate, this Court finds that there are 5 legal heirs including the second defendant and for the purpose of executing assignment deed in favour of plaintiff, the second defendant obtained necessary authorization from other four legal heirs namely Venkata Prasa, Arunkumar, Subarekha and Sangeetha and the said document is also marked as Ex.P7 dated 28.09.2012. In this circumstances, the plaintiff issued a letter to the first defendant, which is also marked as Ex.P8. By way of the said letter, the plaintiff also informed about the purchase of the rights of the above films to D1. For the said letter, D1 has replied on 05.12.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiff also sent a letter, which is marked as Ex.P.10 requesting them to register the said film and the copyright in the name of the plaintiff.

¶59

8/10

¶60

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶61

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶62

On perusal of Exs.P3 to P7, this Court finds that the plaintiff is the owner of the rights with regard to the above films mentioned in Exs.P3 to P6. Therefore, this Court directs the defendant No.1 to register the name of the plaintiff, who is the copyright holder and remove all other persons registered as owner of the copyrights. Thus, when the plaintiff is the owner of the copyrights first defendant is bound to register the name of the plaintiff as owner of the copyright holder.

¶63

In view of the above reasons, the suit is decreed as
prayed for. Consequently, connected original application is closed.
09.08.2019
AT

¶64

9/10

¶65

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶66

C.S.No.918 of 2016

¶67

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.

¶68

¶69

C.S.No.918 of 2016 and
O.A.No.1098 of 2016

¶70

09.08.2019

¶71

10/10

¶72

http://www.judis.nic.in

Messrs Sri Devi Video v. Avm Cine Lab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messrs Sri Devi Video v. Avm Cine Lab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Salem Stainless Steel Vs M/S.Sumeet Machines Limited

Union Motors Services Ltd. Vs Dev Fasteners Ltd.

Radha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Koyyah Sons Pte Limited

A.D.Padmasingh Isaac Vs Roshini Industries

A.D.Padmasingh Isaac Vs a. Shakul Hameed

M/S.Srushti Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Srushti Test Tube Baby Centre