Dismissed

M/S.Autar Singh and Co.P.Ltd. v. 1.B.BALAJI,PROPRIETOR

Madras HC28 Jun 2021CS/49/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A copyright suit seeking declaration and injunction for satellite rights was dismissed under the Commercial Courts Act. The court held the suit was futile as the suit was already dismissed against the actual infringer, the second defendant, rendering proceedings against the producer and lab unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A CPC; no costs awarded.

M/S.Autar Singh and Co.P.Ltd. Vs 1.B.BALAJI,PROPRIETOR — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.S.No.49 of 2002

¶7

In the matter of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 and In the matter of the Limited Copyright in the picture “Vettaikaran” - Tamil

¶8

M/s.AVTAR SINGH & CO. (P) LTD. Office at 3B, Alsa Towers, 186-187, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10 Rep.by its Manager Mr.K.Mohammed Ebrahim

¶9

...Plaintiff

¶10

.Vs.

¶11

1.B.Balaji Proprietor Sri Sai Lakshmi Films T.Nagar, Chennai 17. 2.Y.Ravi Babu No.181, Kakkan Colony, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. : Defendants

¶12

3.M/s.PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES No.22, Arunachalam Road, Chennai – 96. : Garnishee Civil suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:-

¶14

¶15

a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the

¶16

limited copy rights viz., The World Satellite Television and Telecasting Rights in the picture “VETTAIKARAN” -Tamil- dubbed from the Telugu Film “MRUGA RAJU” produced by Devi Vara Prasad, starring Chiranjeevi, Simran, Ramba etc. or a perpetual period;

¶17

b) For a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's limited copyright viz., World Satellite Television Rights and Telecasting the picture “VETTAIKARAN” Tamil dubbed from the Telugu film “MRUGA RAJU” starring Chiranjeevi, Simran, Ramba etc. and produced by the 1^st defendant for a perpetual period in pursuance of the confirmation letter Ref.No.PFL:D10:FA:GENL:501/2001 dated 27.07.01 of the M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories and

¶18

c) For costs of the suit.

¶19

This Civil suit coming on this day before this court for hearing and the plaintiff herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the plaint filed herein, and this court having observed that the suit relates to copyrights of a movie which falls within the definition of commercial dispute under Section 2(1) (C) (xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, therefore the jurisdiction is decided to the effect that this is a commercial dispute and the Commercial Division takes congnizance of the suit, and the suit itself has been dismissed as against the 2^nd defendant on 20.10.2004, the 1^st defendant is the Producer of the movie and the 3^rd defendant is the colour lab, a reading of the plaint show that the claim of the plaintiff is that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transfer of the copyrights in favour of the 2^nd defendant by the 1^st defendant

¶20

¶21

is not valid, and the plaintiff claims copyrights in respect of the movie pursuant to the agreement dated 04.05.2001, the plaintiff also impugnes the letter dated 24.07.2001 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant granting satellite telecasting rights to the 2^nd defendant and therefore, the actual infringer is the 2^nd defendant, and there is no prayer for damages also, now, the suit is dismissed as against the actual contesting party viz., the 2^nd defendant and this court do not think that there is any scope for proceeding with the suit as against the 1^st and 3^rd defendants. it is ordered as follows:-

¶22

That the Suit in C.S.No. 49 of 2002, be and is hereby dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶23

That there shall be no costs of this suit.

¶24

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JUNE 2021.

¶25

Sd./-

¶26

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (COMM.CASES)

¶27

//Certified to be true copy//

¶28

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶29

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

SK-08.07.2021

C.S.No.49 of 2002

ORDER :- DATED:28.06.2021

¶35

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶36

FOR APPROVAL: 13.07.2021

¶37

APPROVED ON: 15.07.2021

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶41

DATED : 28.06.2021

¶42

CORAM

¶43

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶44

C.S.No.49 of 2002

¶45

M/s.AVTAR SINGH & CO. (P) LTD.

...Plaintiff

.Vs.

1.B.Balaji

2.Y.Ravi Babu

3.M/s.PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES No.22, Arunachalam Road, Chennai – 96. ... Defendants

¶51

Plaint filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 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 judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:

¶52

a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copy rights viz., The World Satellite Television and Telecasting Rights in the picture “VETTAIKARAN” -Tamil- dubbed from the Telugu Film “MURUGA RAJU” produced by Devi Vara Prasad, starring https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

Chiranjeevi, Simran, Ramba etc. or a perpetual period;

¶54

¶55

b) For a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men,

¶56

agents, assignees, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from

¶57

interfering with the plaintiff's limited copyright viz., World Satellite Television Rights and Telecasting the picture “VETTAIKARAN” Tamil dubbed from the Telugu film “MURUGA RAJU” starring Chiranjeevi, Simran, Ramba etc. and produced by the 1^st defendant for a perpetual period in pursuance of the confirmation letter Ref.No.PFL:D10:FA:GENL:501/2001 dated 27.07.01 of the M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories and

¶58

c) For costs of the suit.

¶59

For Plaintiff : No appearance

¶60

¶61

J U D G M E N T

¶62

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:

¶63

¶64

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

b) For a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men,

¶66

¶67

agents, assignees, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from

¶68

¶69

in pursuance of the confirmation letter Ref.No.PFL:D10:FA:GENL:501/2001 dated 27.07.01 of the M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories and

¶70

c) For costs of the suit.

¶71

2. It is seen from the records that the suit itself has been dismissed as against the 2^nd defendant on 20.10.2004. The 1^st defendant is the Producer of the movie and the 3^rd defendant is the colour lab. A reading of the plaint show that the claim of the plaintiff is that the transfer of the copyrights in favour of the 2^nd defendant by the 1^st defendant is not valid. The plaintiff claims copyrights in respect of the movie pursuant to the agreement dated 04.05.2001. The plaintiff also impugnes the letter dated 24.07.2001 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant granting satellite telecasting rights to the 2^nd defendant. Therefore, the actual infringer is the

¶72

2^nd defendant. There is no prayer for damages also.

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

3. Now, the suit is dismissed as against the actual contesting party

¶75

¶76

viz., the 2

¶77

viz., the 2^nd defendant. I do not think that there is any scope for proceeding

¶78

with the suit as against the 1^st and 3^rd defendants. Hence, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. No costs.

¶79

Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,) 28.06.2021 List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil

¶80

List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil

¶81

Sd./-(R.S.M.J.,) 28.06.2021

¶82

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶83

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶84

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Autar Singh and Co.P.Ltd. v. 1.B.BALAJI,PROPRIETOR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Autar Singh and Co.P.Ltd. v. 1.B.BALAJI,PROPRIETOR

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

The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras Vs M/s. Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited(formerly know Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd)

Smt.C.Padmavathy and Another Vs S.Mano Renjith

Srinivasa Raghavan Vs Premier Property Development Pvt. Ltd.

M/s.Sun Tv Network Ltd. Vs M/s.Mary Matha Production

M/S.O.K. Films Vs M/S. Aditya Cable Views

Wipro Ltd., Vs Neelgiri Wood Crafts