The Court dismissed a civil suit for copyright declaration and injunction, and a connected interim application, finding no chance of success as the primary defendant was out of business, with liberty to sue for future violations.
Suit dismissed under Order XIII A Rule 3 CPC; connected O.A. closed; no costs.
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)
MONDAY, THE 05th DAY OF JULY 2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.161 of 2001 and O.A.No.213 of 2001
In the matter of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 and In the matter of The Limited Copyright in the picture “Paasamalar” - Tamil
Raj Television Network Limited rep. by its Director M.Raveendran registered office at No.32 Poes Road, II Street, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
...Plaintiff/Applicant
.Vs.
3.D.DoraRachal 37, Kutty Appa Street, Ranga Colony https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Medavakkam, Chennai 600 010.
... Defendants/Respondents
2
Civil suit praying that this Hon'ble be pleased to pass a decree and
judgment against the defendants as follows:
(b) For a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from telecasting the picture or interfering with the plaintiff's limited copyright in the picture “Paasamalar” starring Shivaji Ganesan, Gemini Ganesan, Savithri and others and directed by Bhim Singh and
(c) for costs of the suit.
OA.No.213 of 2001:-
Application praying that this Hon'ble be pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from telecasting the picture or interfering with the petitioner's limited copyright in the picture “Paasamalar” starring Sivaji Ganesan, Gemini Ganesan, Savithri and others and directed by Bhim Singh pending disposal of the suit.
This Civil suit alongwith Original Application coming on this day
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.K.Harishankar, Advocate
for the Plaintiff in C.S.No.161 of 2001 and for the Applicant in O.A.No.213
3
of 2001 and Mr.V.Manohar, Advocate for the 2nd defendant in C.S.No.161
of 2001 and for the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.213 of 2001 and the defendant
1 and 3/respondents 1 and 3 herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the plaint filed in C.S.No.161 of 2021 and the judges
summons and the affidavit of M.Raveendran and the counter affidavit of
any chance of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit, in view of the fact that the
2nd defendant is already out of business and there is no other reason to keep the plaint alive, it is however made clear that this dismissal will not bar the plaintiff from taking appropriate proceedings, if there is any future violation of the copyright of the plaintiff. It is ordered as follows:-
That the C.S.No.161 of 2001 be and is hereby dismissed under Rule 3(a) and (b) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 05th 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
4
SK-25.08.2021
C.S.No.161 of 2001 and O.A.No.213 of 2001
ORDER :- DATED : 05.07.2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
FOR APPROVAL: 25.08.2021
APPROVED ON: 26.08.2021
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.161 of 2001 and
O.A.No.213 of 2001
Raj Television Network Limited rep. by its Director M.Raveendran
...Plaintiff
.Vs.
3.D.DoraRachal
... Defendants
Plaint filed under Section 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree and judgment against the defendants as follows:
(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz., the World Satellite TV rights amongst other rights in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the picture “Pasamalar” starring Shivaji Ganesan, Gemini Ganesan, Savithri
6
and others and directed by Bhim Singh.
(c) for costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.K.Harishankar
For defendants : Mr.V.Manohar for D2 No appearance for D1 and D3
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for infringement of copyright and for permanent injunction in respect of tamil featured film “Pasamalar”.
2. Heard Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff and Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant. The defendants 1 and 3 are not appearing either in person or through counsel duly instructed, though service on them have been completed even on 14.06.2005.
3. Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant
would submit that he is unable to contact the 2nd defendant and that he
suspects that the 2nd defendant is out of business.
4. Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
7
would submit that the suit may be disposed of under Rule 3(a) and (b) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with liberty to the plaintiff to renew if there is any future violation.
5. In view of the statements made by the counsel, particularly the statement made by Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant that the 2nd defendant is no longer in the business, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) and (b) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as I do not see any chance of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit, in view of the fact that the 2nd defendant is already out of business and there is no other reason to keep the plaint alive. It is however made clear that this dismissal will not bar the plaintiff from taking appropriate proceedings, if there is any future violation of the copyright of the plaintiff. No costs. Consequently the connected application is closed.
Sd./-(V.P.N.J.,) 05.07.2021
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.,)
05.07.2021
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 a civil suit for copyright infringement and injunction should be dismissed when the defendant is out of business.
Whether the plaintiff is barred from future proceedings if the current suit is dismissed on these grounds.
Whether to close the connected interim application when the main suit is dismissed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Television Network Limited
K. Mohanakrishnan
Sembi Traders
D. DoraRachal
R.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
