Partly allowed

Nandagopal Chetty v. Mr.Sunil

Madras HC5 Feb 2020CS/159/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding copyright rights in the film 'POONILAMAZHA' based on an assignment deed. However, finding insufficient evidence of actual telecast infringement, damages were restricted to the deed's consideration amount of Rs.50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Prayer (a) and (b) allowed. Prayer (c) allowed but restricted to Rs.50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum.

Nandagopal Chetty Vs Mr.Sunil — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 05.02.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

C.S.No.159 of 2014 and O.A.No.180 of 2014
1.Nandagopal Chetty
2.T.Rajagopalan .. Plaintiffs
/versus/
1.Sunil
P.A.Holder
Ponthara
2.M/s.Asianet Communication Ltd.,
Asianet Complex
Pulyarakonam P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram-695 573
3.Gemini Colour Laboratory
No.2, Vembuli Amman Koil Street
Virugambakkam
Chennai-600 078. .. Defendants

¶7

This Civil Suit is filed under Section 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 read with Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 as amended, praying for (a) for a declaration that the second plaintiff is the absolute owner of the absolute entire World Negative rights by permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants anybody on their behalf or assigns from in any manner from infringing the copy rights and the exclusive rights assigned to 2^nd plaintiff by deed

¶8

1/14

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶11

of assignment dated 01.10.2013 of the suit picture (picture and sound) Dubbing and Remaking Rights in all languages along with its copy right of 35 mm and 16 mm commercial and non-commercial, theatrical, nontheatrical rights, Television rights in all Channels including National, Regional, Metro, Channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and its satellite and entertainment channels, satellite Television broadcasting rights, private communication, broadcasting, cable TV, Pay TV, Pay per view TV, Pay on Demand, Direct to Home, Direct to user rights, MMDS, Video on Demand, Wire, Wireless, IPTV, CCTV, airborne, highseas, rail borne, surface, transport rights, All India Radio, FM Private Radio Broadcasting, Audio/DC rights, Video copyrights including VCD, LD, DVD, Mini-HD, Blue Ray, Mp4, HDCD, Internet/Web Technology, broadband rights, mobile, microchip, ringtone rights, portal rights and by form of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds by transmission of electromagnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by general public directly or indirectly through medium of relay stations and all electric and electronic rights of present and future inventions in the entire world including India of the said cinematograph film for a perpetual period of Ninety nine years commencing from the date of the agreement being 01.10.2013 ; b) by permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, or their representatives, anybody on their behalf or assigns from in any manner from infringing the copyrights and exclusive rights assigned to the 2^nd plaintiff by deed of assignment dated 01.10.2013 in respect of the suit picture “POONILAMAZHA” Malayalam Colour scope starring Prasanth, Thilagam and others directed by Mr.Sunil, and also including the entire World Negative rights (picture and sound) Dubbing and Remaking Rights in all languages

¶12

2/14

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶15

along with its copy right of 35 mm and 16 mm commercial and noncommercial, theatrical, non-theatrical rights, Television rights in all Channels including National, Regional, Metro, Channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and its satellite and entertainment channels, satellite Television broadcasting rights, private communication, broadcasting, cable TV, Pay TV, Pay per view TV, Pay on Demand, Direct to Home, Direct to use rights, MMDS, Video on Demand, Wire, Wireless, IPTV, CCTV, airborne, highseas, rail borne, surface, transport rights, All India Radio, FM Private Radio Broadcasting, Audio/DC rights, Video copyrights including VCD, LD, DVD, Mini-HD, Blue Ray, MP4, HDCD, Internet/Web Technology, broadband rights, mobile, microchip, ringtone rights, portal rights and any form of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds by transmission of electromagnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by general public directly or indirectly through medium of relay stations and all electric and electronic rights of present and future inventions in the entire world including India of the said cinematograph film for a perpetual period of Ninety nine years commencing from the date of the agreement being 01.10.2013, and c) directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation, caused to the plaintiffs by illegally telecasting the suit picture “POONILAMAZHA” and thereby caused the infringement of copy rights of the suit picture ““POONILAMAZHA”.

¶16

For Plaintiffs : Mr.E.Senthilkumar For Defendants : Set Exparte

¶17

3/14

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs.

¶22

The suit is filed for the following reliefs:

¶23

(a) for a declaration that the second plaintiff is the absolute

¶24

owner of the absolute entire World Negative rights by permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants anybody on their behalf or assigns from in any manner from infringing the copy rights and the exclusive rights assigned to 2^nd plaintiff by deed of assignment dated 01.10.2013 of the suit picture (picture and sound) Dubbing and Remaking Rights in all languages along with its copy right of 35 mm and 16 mm commercial and non-commercial, theatrical, nontheatrical rights, Television rights in all Channels including National, Regional, Metro, Channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and its satellite and entertainment channels, satellite Television broadcasting rights, private communication, broadcasting, cable TV, Pay TV, Pay per view TV, Pay on Demand, Direct to Home, Direct to user rights, MMDS, Video on Demand, Wire, Wireless, IPTV, CCTV, airborne, highseas, rail borne, surface, transport rights, All India Radio, FM Private Radio Broadcasting, Audio/DC

¶25

4/14

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶28

rights, Video copyrights including VCD, LD, DVD, Mini-HD, Blue Ray, Mp4, HDCD, Internet/Web Technology, broadband rights, mobile, microchip, ringtone rights, portal rights and by form of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds by transmission of electromagnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by general public directly or indirectly through medium of relay stations and all electric and electronic rights of present and future inventions in the entire world including India of the said cinematograph film for a perpetual period of Ninety nine years commencing from the date of the agreement being 01.10.2013 ;

¶29

b) by permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

¶30

men, agents, servants, or their representatives, anybody on their behalf or assigns from in any manner from infringing the copyrights and exclusive rights assigned to the 2^nd plaintiff by deed of assignment dated 01.10.2013 in respect of the suit picture “POONILAMAZHA” Malayalam Colour scope starring Prasanth, Thilagam and others directed by Mr.Sunil, and also including the entire World Negative rights (picture and sound) Dubbing and Remaking Rights in all languages along with its copy right of 35 mm and 16 mm commercial and non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical rights, Television rights in all Channels including National, Regional,

¶31

5/14

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶34

Metro, Channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and its satellite and entertainment channels, satellite Television broadcasting rights, private communication, broadcasting, cable TV, Pay TV, Pay per view TV, Pay on Demand, Direct to Home, Direct to use rights, MMDS, Video on Demand, Wire, Wireless, IPTV, CCTV, airborne, highseas, rail borne, surface, transport rights, All India Radio, FM Private Radio Broadcasting, Audio/DC rights, Video copyrights including VCD, LD, DVD, Mini-HD, Blue Ray, MP4, HDCD, Internet/Web Technology, broadband rights, mobile, microchip, ringtone rights, portal rights and any form of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds by transmission

¶35

of electromagnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by general public directly or indirectly through medium of relay stations and all electric and electronic rights of present and future inventions in the entire world including India of the said cinematograph film for a perpetual period of Ninety nine years commencing from the date of the agreement being 01.10.2013,

¶36

and c) directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the

¶37

date of plaint till the date of realisation, caused to the plaintiffs by illegally telecasting the suit picture “POONILAMAZHA” and thereby caused the

¶38

6/14

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶41

infringement of copy rights of the suit picture ““POONILAMAZHA”.

¶42

The brief facts narrated in the plaint is that 1^st plaintiff is in

¶43

the business of film financing, producing pictures and distributing the same. The 2^nd plaintiff is the assignee of the right in “POONILAMAZHA”, Malayalam Movie which the 1^st plaintiff has acquired the copy rights from its producer by a letter dated 10.01.1997. While the copy right is held by the 2^nd plaintiff through the 1^st plaintiff, the 2^nd defendant herein has telecasted the Movie in the Channel during the month of October 2013 without any authority or right. Hence the plaintiffs as well as the 3^rd defendant issued notice to the 2^nd defendant not to telecaste the Movie in their Channel, but the notice did not evoke any response. Hence the present suit has been filed for

¶44

declaration, permanent injunction and for damages as stated above.

¶45

Despite notice, there was no representation on behalf of the

¶46

defendants. Hence, they were set exparte.

¶47

The plaintiffs to prove their case have filed the proof affidavit and marked Exhibits P1 to Ex.P10. Ex.P1 is the letter issued by the

¶48

producer/1^st defendant to the 3^rd defendant/Gemini Colour Laboratory acknowledging the financial liability with the plaintiffs and the ownership of

¶49

7/14

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶51

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶52

the negatives of the said Movie (Malayalam) colour scope with the plaintiff. The relevant passage indicating the undertaking found in Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 are extracted below:

¶53

4. We have undertaken that in lieu of the finance arrangement Mr.Nandagopal Chetty, Madras, will be owners of the negatives, its lease and exploitation rights, dubbing and remake rights, telecasting and Video rights and their realisations, royalty collections, revenue and all the attendant benefits, and they will also be permitted to conclude sale of ownership rights of the said picture, its lease and exploitation rights for the entire World and such arrangement as entered into by them will be fully binding on us without demur.

¶54

5. They are irrecovably permitted to handle the negatives for the purposes of completing the picture, employ technicians and artists and also to release the picture, without any further reference to us and all their acts committed to the above effects will be fully binding on us.

¶55

On the very same day, the 3^rd defendant/Gemini Colour

¶56

Laboratory has also confirmed the right of the 1^st plaintiff over the said Movie. In the said confirmation letter, the 3^rd defendant has specifically informed the plaintiffs that the 1^st defendant has given an undertaking that he shall not enter into any other contract with any other Laboratory, in respect of the above named picture nor shall create any charges or any

¶57

8/14

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶59

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶60

encumbrance on the negatives.

¶61

Contrary to this undertaking, the 1^st defendant has permitted

¶62

the 3^rd defendant to telecast the Movie in the Channel. Ex.P3 is the deed of assignment entered into between the 1^st plaintiff and the 2^nd plaintiff on 01.10.2013, assigning the copy right held by the 1^st plaintiff in favour of the 2^nd plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs have joined together to lay the suit. The letter sent by the plaintiffs and the 3^rd defendant to the 2^nd defendant to desist from telecasting the Moive in the Channel are marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 respectively. Neither the 1^st defendant nor the 2^nd defendant has responded to these notices. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would pray that the suit may be allowed as per the relief

¶63

sought.

¶64

On a perusal of the Exhibits P1 to P10 relied by the plaintiffs,

¶65

this Court finds there was a contract between the 1^st defendant and the 1^st plaintiff. Pursuant to that, the Lab letter has been given by the 1^st defendant to the 3^rd defendant recognizing the negative rights vest with the 1^st plaintiff. The said negative right has been assigned by the 1^st plaintiff in favour of the 2^nd plaintiff as per the the assignment deed dated 1.10.2013.

¶66

Nowhere in the Lab letter, the consideration has been mentioned.

¶67

9/14

¶68

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶69

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶70

However, in the assignment Ex.P3, this Court finds that the consideration for the assignment of the world negative right and all copy rights held by the 1^st plaintiff in the Movie “ POONILMAZHA” is shown as Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, though the plaintiffs have sought damages of Rs.5,00,000/- in the suit, infact, the consideration for the Movie right as per the assignment was only Rs.50,000/-. That apart, the documents relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs does not indicate whether the 3^rd defendant has telecasted the Movie and if so, on which date, the 3^rd respondent telecasted the Movie. In the absence of material evidence to prove the said fact, the 2^nd defendant cannot be held liable for any damage whatsoever.

¶71

As a result, the suit is partly allowed and the plaintiff is

¶72

entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for. As far as the damage and loss is concerned, though the plaintiffs have claimed Rs.5,00,000/-, material evidence indicates that the consideration for the said Movie copy right was only Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, if at all he has incurred loss by telecasting the Movie in the 2^nd defendant's Channel without permission, he is entitled only to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the claim of damage is restricted to Rs.50,000/- and decree is passed accordingly.

¶73

10/14

¶74

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶75

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶76

In the result, the suit is partly allowed. Prayer (a) and (b)

¶77

allowed. Prayer(c) restricted to Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24%

¶78

per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The plaintiff

¶79

is also entitled for the costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

¶80

petition is closed.

¶81

05.02.2020
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Index : yes/no
uma
Plaintiffs' side Witnesses:
PW1 T.Rajagopalan
Plaintiffs' side documents:
Ex.P1 10.01.1997 Xerox copy of the letter from Ponthara (1 st defendant)
to Gemini Laboratory (3 rd defendant)
Ex.P2 10.01.1997 Xerox copy of Letter from Gemini Colour Laboratory to
Nandagopal Chetty.
Ex.P3 01.10.2013 Original Deed of Assignment entered into between the
1 st plaintiff and the 2 nd plaintiff.
Ex.P4. 01.10.2013 Xerox copy of the letter from K.Nandhagopal Chetty to
Gemini Colour Laboratory.

¶82

11/14

¶83

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶84

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶85

Ex.P5 03.10.2013 Original Letter from Gemini Colour Laboratory to Asianet Communications Ltd.,

¶86

Ex.P6 05.10.2013 Original Letter from K.Nandagopal Chetty to Gemini Colour Laboratory.

¶87

Ex.P7 23.10.2013 Original Letter from Gemini Colour Laboratory to T.Rajagopalan, the 2^nd plaintiff.

¶88

Ex.P8 29.10.2013 Xerox copy of Notice from the plaintiff's counsel to the defendants 1 and 2.

¶89

Ex.P9 01.11.2013 Original Acknowledgment card from the 2^nd defendant Ex.P10 01.11.2013 Original returned cover from the 1^st defendant. Defendants' side Witnesses and Documents: Nil.

¶90

12/14

¶91

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶92

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶93

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶94

uma
C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶95

05.02.2020

¶96

13/14

¶97

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶98

C.S.No.159 of 2014

¶99

14/14

¶100

http://www.judis.nic.in

Nandagopal Chetty v. Mr.Sunil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandagopal Chetty v. Mr.Sunil

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

S.Khaja Mohideen Proprietor Vs Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd.

S.E. Mohamed Rizwanullah Saheb Vs Shaik Ismail and Sons

Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited, Vs Allcargo Logisitics Limited

G.R.Raju Vs Tarun Films International

K Arumugham Vs the Sect. to Govt

Haja Mohammed @ Haji Mohammed Vs The Inspector of Police