The High Court dismissed a suit filed for permanent injunction against copyright infringement of a movie titled Senthoora Poove. The judge held that since the movie had already been released, the suit no longer survives.
Suit dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of CPC. No costs allowed.
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.
C.S.No.520 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.520 of 1999
M/s.Bavaria International
No.3, Mada Church Road,
Mandavelipakkam, Chennai – 600 028,
rep. by Proprietor
Mr.L.Adaikalraj ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.Tamil Ponnie Art
No.41, Second Street,
Kumaran Colony
Vadapalani
Madras – 600 026.
rep. by its Power of Attorney
Holder Mr.Aabaavanan
2.Lakshmi Productions
No.52, Dr.B.N.Road
T.Nagar, Madras – 600 017.
3.Aabaavanan ... Defendants
Page No.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.520 of 1999
Plaint filed under Sections 55 and 62 of Copyright Act read with Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules praying for a judgment and decree for:
a) permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents or servants from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs copyright over the negatives (both sound and picture) of the cinematography Tamil full length feature film “Senthoora Poove” in 35 mm colour starring Vijayakanth, Ramki, Nirosha and others directed by P.R.Devaraj and
b) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.A.Umashankar
********
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for injunction restraining the defendants from
infringing the copyrights of the plaintiff over the cinematography film
“Senthoora Poove”.
2. Heard Mr.A.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.
Page No.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.520 of 1999
3. The suit itself is of the year 1999. The movie was released long
back. The plaintiff is a financier who has obtained certain rights over the movie. Now, the movie itself has been released, I do not think that the suit survives.
4. 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, reserving the liberty to the plaintiff to take appropriate action if there is any violation in future. No costs. 28.06.2021 dsa Index : No Internet : Yes Non-speaking order
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
28.06.2021
dsa
Page No.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.520 of 1999
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.S.No.520 of 1999
28.06.2021
Page No.4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tamil Ponnie Art
Lakshmi Productions
Aabaavanan
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
