The petitioner filed a suit for infringement of copyright regarding satellite telecast rights. The plaintiff subsequently filed a memo withdrawing the suit as not pressed. The High Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn and allowed the refund of court fees.
Suit dismissed as withdrawn; refund of court fee permitted.
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.999 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No.999 of 2001
Asianet Communications Ltd.,
Represented by its DGM (Finance)
Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan ...
Plaintiff
..Vs..
1.Surya T.V.
A Unit of Sun T.V. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.Kalanidhi Maran.
2.Nandana Films,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Swagath, Mullackal,
Alleppey, Kerala State.
3.M/s.Super International,
A Film Distributing Company,
represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.R.B.Choudhary
23-A, North Boag Road,
T.Nagar, Madras - 600 017. ...
Defendants
C.S.No.999 of 2001
PRAYER : Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S.Rules and Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, prayed for a Judgment and
Decree:-
(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, men, representatives, assigns and anyone whosoever claiming through the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in respect of the exclusive Satellite Television Telecast rights of the Malayalam Feature Films MUDRA directed by SIBI MALAYIL and starring Mammothy, Parvathy and others, and THANIYAVARTHANAM directed by SIBI MALAYIL and starring Mamoothy, Saritha and others, in whole or reproduction of any part thereof, by exploitation for public or private viewing by broadcasting on the first defendant's channel or on any other channel by satellite telecast;
(b) directing the first defendant to pay to the plaintiff damages
amounting to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) along with
interest at 12% per annum from date of plaint till date of realization;
C.S.No.999 of 2001
(c) For costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan
For Defendants : D1 - No Appearance
D2, D3 - Set Exparte on 21.11.2006
*********
J U D G M E N T
A memo had been filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. It
is as follows:
"The Plaintiff begs to withdraw the suit as not
pressed and the memo of the Plaintiff is filed here along
with. It is prayed that proportionate Court fee may be
refunded as per the Rules.
Dated at Chennai on this the 16th day of March
2021.
sd/---,
Counsel for
Plaintiff."
C.S.No.999 of 2001
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J rna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil suit filed for permanent injunction under the Copyright Act should be dismissed when the plaintiff voluntarily withdraws the suit.
Whether court fees paid in a withdrawn suit are eligible for refund under the relevant rules.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Asianet Communications Ltd.
Surya T.V.
Nandana Films
M/s.Super International
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
