The High Court dismissed a copyright suit filed in 2001 for non-prosecution. The court noted the second defendant remained unserved and concluded no useful purpose would be served by keeping the plaint pending, noting the plaintiff had no witnesses or exhibits.
Suit dismissed for non-prosecution; no costs awarded.
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
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WEDNESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.1016 of 2001
Suresh Kishore ( deceased)*
*** B.Ramalakshmi W/o. Bangalore Balon No.28, Old No.95, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.**
[ Impleaded as per order dated 03.06.2002 in A.No.1837 of 2002]*
...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.S.Sundaram Proprietor : SSS Films No.177 (Old No.25-C) Arcot Road, Chennai 600 092.
2.M/s.Sanjay A.Wadhwa HUF II Rep. by Sanjay A.Wadhwa 708, Shivalaya “A” Block 198, Ethiraj Salai Egmore, Chennai – 600 105.
3.B.N.Suresh Reddy Proprietor : Vijaya Colour Laboratory No.9-A, Kumaran Colony Main Road, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.
... Defendants
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Civil suit praying that this Hon'ble be pleased to pass a judgment and
2
decree against the defendants:
a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the copyright to exhibit, exploit and distribute the Tamil talkie colour picture entitled “Neruppu” starring Ranjith and Karishma Rai and others directed by Ramesh Sanjay over all the territories all over India and excluding the foreign Malaysia and Singapore worlwide satellite and Indian Doordarshan and Terrestrial television telecasting territories;
b) Granting permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his agents and servants and any person and every person claiming through him or acting upon his letter, petition or complaint from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the suit picture to exhibit, exploit and distribute the Tamil talkie colour picture entitled “Neruppu” starring Ranjith and Karishma Rai and others directed by Ramesh Sanjay over all the territories all over India and excluding the foreign Malaysia and Singapore worldwide satellite and Indian Doordarshan and Terrestrial Television telecasting territories;
c) Directing the first defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
This Civil suit coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.PL.Narayanan Advocate for the 3rd Defendant herein and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plaintiff herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the
3
plaint filed herein, and this court having observed that the suit itself is of the
year 2001 and the 2nd defendant remains unserved even as of today, and this
court does not think that any useful purpose would be served by keeping
this plaint pending, It is ordered as follows:-
That the Suit in C.S.No.1016 of 2001 be and is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2021.
Sd./-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (COMM.CASES) //Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
4
SK-26.08.2021
C.S.No.1016 of 2001
ORDER :- DATED : 14.07.2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
FOR APPROVAL:27.08.2021
APPROVED ON:31.08.2021
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.1016 of 2001
Suresh Kishore (deceased)
B.Ramalakshmi
[Impleaded as per order dated 03.06.2002 in A.No.1837 of 2002]
...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.S.Sundaram
2.M/s.Sanjay A.Wadhwa HUF II Rep. by Sanjay A.Wadhwa 708, Shivalaya “A” Block 198, Ethiraj Salai Egmore, Chennai – 600 105.
3.B.N.Suresh Reddy ... Defendants
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII and Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and read with Sections 55, 56, 60 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants:
a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the copyright to exhibit, exploit and distribute the Tamil talkie colour picture https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entitled “Neruppu” starring Ranjith and Karishma Rai and others directed
6
by Ramesh Sanjay over all the territories all over India and excluding the foreign Malaysia and Singapore worlwide satellite and Indian Doordarshan and Terrestrial television telecasting territories;
b) Granting permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his agents and servants and any person and every person claiming through him or acting upon his letter, petition or complaint from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the suit picture to exhibit, exploit and distribute the Tamil talkie colour picture entitled “Neruppu” starring Ranjith and Karishma Rai and others directed by Ramesh Sanjay over all the territories all over India and excluding the foreign Malaysia and Singapore worlwide satellite and Indian Doordarshan and Terrestrial Television telecasting territories;
c) Directing the first defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
For Plaintiff : No appearance For Defendants : Mr.PL.Narayanan for 3rd defendant
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for declaration of copyright and for injunction
restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the suit picture.
2. Mr.PL.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd defendant
who is the Proprietor of Vijaya Colour Laboratory would submit that the
7
laboratory itself is closed and whatever negatives that were available with
the Vijaya Colour Laboratory of this film would only run for a short while.
3. Considering the fact that the suit itself is of the year 2001 and the
2nd defendant remains unserved even as of today, I do not think that any
useful purpose would be served by keeping this plaint pending.
4. Therefore, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,) 14.07.2021
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil
Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,)
14.07.2021
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit should continue given the age of the filing and the status of service of process.
Whether the matter requires any judicial purpose to be served by keeping the plaint pending.
What remedy is available against an unserved defendant in a long-pending suit with no prosecution.
S.Sundaram
M/s.Sanjay A.Wadhwa HUF Rep. by Sanjay A.Wadhwa
B.N.Suresh Reddy
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
