Allowed

M/s.Raj Television Network Ltd. v. Silver Star Communication Ltd.

Madras HC14 Sept 2021OA/172/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interim injunction application was filed to make absolute an injunction initially granted on 24.03.2021 in a suit for declaration of title and injunction regarding copyright infringement. The defendant challenged the injunction, claiming superior title via a 2019 assignment. The Court rejected the challenge based on the plaintiff's long-standing exploitation and lack of non-joinder issues in th

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction dated 24.03.2021 was made absolute; right over the suit films to be decided after trial.

M/s.Raj Television Network Ltd. Vs Silver Star… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 08.09.2021 Pronounced on : 14.09.2021

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021 M/s.RAJ TELEVISION NETWORK LTD, Rep. by its Director Mr.M.Ravindran, No.32, Poes Road, 2^nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Applicant/Plaintiff /versus/ SILVER STAR COMMUNICATIONS LTD Rep. by its Director Ms.Jayanthi Thangabalu, No.24, 6^th Main Road, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ... Respondent/Defendant

¶7

Prayer:- This application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C.

¶8

For Applicant : Mr.K.Harishankar For Respondent : Mr.K.Myilsamy

¶9

__*

¶10

1/13

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Suit is filed under the Copyrights Act, 1999, for declaration of title

¶15

and injunction, alleging infringement of Copyright by the defendant in respect of Cinematograph films morefully described under schedule “A” of the plaint.

¶16

2. According to the plaint, the plaintiff is carrying on business as a

¶17

satellite television network operator since 1994. During the course of the business

¶18

acquired exclusive and entire copyrights in the suit schedule films through various agreements from the owners of the copyrights for valuable consideration. The copyrights acquired by the plaintiff is exploited in its satellite television channels

¶19

and also exploited through all other mediums and territories. The copyrights were acquired either directly from the original producers or from the rights holders. The right so acquired includes, entire right of exploitation, distribution of Indian video rights and Indian TV Rights, Entire World satellite TV rights, cable TB and Dish antenna rights and exhibition of the said films in any mode of visual, or acoustic presentation including exhibition by means of a wireless diffusion and by wire for communication to the public.

¶20

2/13

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶23

3. The plaintiff enjoying the copyright continuously and

¶24

uninterruptedly. While so, the defendant without any right with respect of the suit schedule films had telecast the full movies in their television channel namely MEGA

¶25

TV on various dates. For the cease and desist notice, the defendant replied that they

¶26

have acquired the copyright through assignment deeds. Therefore, suit for declaration of title and injunction.

¶27

4. Along with the plaint, the application for interim injunction filed and

¶28

this Court being satisfied prima facie that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, granted injunction on 24.03.2021. Aggrieved, the application now under consideration is filed to vacate the injunction.

¶29

5. The defendant, in the counter has brought out certain facts which

¶30

indicates that they are in the business of satellite TV in the name of MEGA TV,

¶31

MEGA MUSIC and MEGA 24. They obtained copyright for the suit schedule films from the rightful producer of those films and the lawful owner of Copyright in those

¶32

films. During the course of their business they acquired copyrights especially Satellite Television right of the films by way of agreement directly from the

¶33

3/13

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶36

respective producers on payment of considerations. They are lawfully exploiting the

¶37

Satellite Right in the said films. They are not infringing the right of the plaintiff.

¶38

6. Thus, it is obvious, the plaintiff and the defendant claim copyright

¶39

over the 20 films and both rely upon the assignment deeds executed in their favour. The deeds of assignment in favour of the plaintiff are earlier in point of time. They also claim that the right assigned is the exclusive right to exploit through Satellite TV, by all modes. As per the plaint, the details of the film, date of assignment and the name of the assignor for the suit subject films are under:-

¶40

S.No. Movie Date of Agreement Description of Documents
1. ENGEYO KETTA 24.08.1990 Agreement executed between
KURAL M/s.P.A.Art Production. Films and
M/s.Raj Video Vision.
2. VEERA 23.12.1993 Agreement executed between
M/s.P.A.Art Production. Films and
M/s.Raj Video Vision
13.10.1999 Agreement executed between M/s
O.K. Films and M/s Raj Television
Network Limited.
3. ENNA 11.08.1994 Agreement executed between Anna
MUTHALALI Productions and M/s.Rajendra's.
SOWKKIYAMA

¶41

4/13

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶43

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶44

*S.No.*	*Movie*	*Date of Agreement*	*Description of Docum*	*ents*
4.	KUVA KUVAL VAATHUKKAL	07.11.1994	Agreement executed M/s.P.A Art Productio M/s. Rajendra's	between ns and
	AARIL ERUNTHU ARUPATHU VARAI THAMBIKKU ENTHA OORU JAPANIL KALYANARAMAN
5.	THANGA SURANRAM	22.11.1995	Agreement executed M/s.E.V.R.Pictures and Television Network Limite	between M/s.Raj d
6.	EDUPPAR KAI PILLAI	12.12.1995	Agreement executed M/s.Good Luck Movies Raj Television Network Li	between and M/s. mited.
7.	ULLAM KAVARNTHA KALVAN	13.12.1995	Agreement executed K.Sathyamoorthy and M/s. Television Network Limite	between Raj d
8.	ANNA KILLI OORU VITTU OORU VANTHU	30.12.1996	Agreement executed M/s.SP.T.Films and Television Network Limite	between M/s.Raj d.
9.	PUNAGAI	30.05.1997	Agreement executed Amutham Pictures and Television Network Limite	between M/s.Raj d.
10.	KALANGARAI VILAKKAM	10.06.1999	Agreement executed bet O.K. Films and M/s Raj Network Limited.	ween M/s Television

¶45

5/13

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶47

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶48

*S.No.*	*Movie*	*Date of Agreemen*	t *Description of Documents*
11.	JAMBU ELLAMEY EN	21.06.1999	Agreement executed between M/s Siddharth Electronics and M/s Raj Television Network Limited.
	KATHALI
12.	SELVAM MAYANGUKIRAL ORU MADHU	10.01.1991	Agreement executed between M/s P.A.Art Productions and M/s Raj Video Vision with respect to the film "GURUS ISHYAN"
	NATHIYIL MUTHU GURU SISIYAN	13.10.1999	Agreement executed between M/s.O.K. Films and M/s.Raj Television Network Limited
	POLLATHAVAN		.
13.	KUDIYIRUNTHA KOIL	23.03.2000	Agreement executed between M/s O.K. Films and M/s Raj Television Network Limited.
14.	PALAIVANACHOLAI	15.05.2000	Agreement executed between M/s.Kumar Pictures and Raj Telefilm Limited.
	NINAITHALE INIKKUM
15.	IVARGAL VARUNGALA THOONGAL	04.07.2001	Agreement executed between M/s O.K. Films and M/s Raj Television Network Limited.
	KANN MALAR
	NANE RAJA NANE MANDIRI
16.	IDAYATHIL NEE ABBORVA SAGOTHRIAL	09.06.2010	Agreement executed between G.SATHYA and M/s Raj Television Network Limited.

¶49

6/13

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶51

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶52

7. The Learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant contented that

¶53

the plaintiff has not obtained assignment from the original owner of the films. For the 6 films Engeyo Ketta Kural, Veera, Kuva Kuva Vathukkal, Aaril Erunthu Arupathu Varai, Thambikku Entha Ooru and Japani Kalyanaraman, the Producercum-original owner is Mrs.Meena Arunachalam. While the plaintiff claims that they got the assignment through her power of attorney holder Mr.Panju Arunachalam

¶54

between the years 1990 to 1994. The defendant has got assignment during the year 2019 from one Mr.P.A.R Subramaniam, who is the assignee of the original owner

¶55

Mrs.Meena Arunachalam.

¶56

8. In so far as the other films Enna Mudalalai Sowkiyama, the plaintiff

¶57

state that they got the assignment form Anna Production on 11.08.1994, the defendant claims that they got assignment from one Mr.Nazer on 13.04.2019, who

¶58

got the assignment from one Mr.K.S.Saravanan on 18.12.2011.

¶59

9. Similarly, for the movie Thanga surangam, the plaintiff claims

¶60

¶61

Pictures. Whereas, the defendant claims the right from J.Chandra vide assignment

¶62

7/13

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶64

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶65

deed dated 16.03.2019, the said Chandra derives right from the assignment deed dated 05.07.1995 by E.V.Rajan.

¶66

10. Similarly for the movie Eduppar Kai Pillai, the plaintiff claims

¶67

copyright from the assignment deed dated 12.12.1995 executed by M/s.Good Luck Movie. Whereas, the defendant claims right through the assignment deed dated 28.12.2017 from one K.M.Manickaraj, who in turn claims right from the deed dated

¶68

20.11.2007 from M.M.Combines.

¶69

11. Similarly for the two movies Anna Killi and Ooru vittu ooru vanthu,

¶70

the plaintiff claims Copyright from the M/s.SPT Films through the assignment deed dated 30.12.1996. Whereas, the defendant claims right through on PAR Subramaniam agreement dated 10.08.2019 who in turn got the assignment from M/s.SPT Films through the assignment deed dated 02.02.2019.

¶71

12. Similarly for all other films except the movie Ullam Kavartha

¶72

Kalvan, the defendant have a parallel document of assignment, but only difference it

¶73

that they are all of recent origin. For the movie Ullam Kavarntha Kalvan, the

¶74

8/13

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶76

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶77

plaintiff claims copyright from the assignment deed dated 13.12.1995 executed by K.Sathyamoorthy.

¶78

13. Particularly, in respect of movies produced by M/s.P.A Arts

¶79

Production, the defendant claims the plaintiff has not produced valid power of attorney deed of Mr.Panju Arunachalam for assigning the copyright on behalf of the producer Mrs.Meena Arunachalam.

¶80

14. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, till the lifetime of Mr.Panju Arunachalam and even thereafter his wife Mrs.Meena Arunachalam had not questioned these assignments. It was Mr.Panju Arunachalam represented the M/s.P.A Arts Production. Ever since the assignments, the plaintiff continuously

¶81

and uninterruptedly exploiting the satellite Copyrights for years together. The Act of the defendant fabricating documents to make rival claim is to be tested in trial.

¶82

Prima facie , the plaintiff through valid document and continuous enjoyment had proved its title, the clauses in the agreement specifically assigns all the satellite TV

¶83

rights perpetually in favour of the plaintiff. If the defendant is allowed to exploit the Copyright based on documents admittedly later in point of time and from persons

¶84

9/13

¶85

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶86

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶87

who had no right or already assigned and lost right, the plaintiff being the lawful owner of the Copyright will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

¶88

15. The Learned Counsel for the defendant also pleaded that the suit

¶89

without impleading the original owner of the copyright not a party in the suit, hence the suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. In support of his argument,

¶90

the Learned Counsel for the defendant relied upon Section 61 of the Copyright Act.

¶91

Plaintiff submitted that, Section 61 of the Act applies only in case of a suit by the exclusive licensee. Whereas, this suit is filed by the assignee as an absolute owner of Copyright as against the infringer. Therefore, Section 61 of the Copyright Act is not applicable.

¶92

17. Yet another plea by the defendant's Counsel was that, for some of

¶93

the suit schedule films, the period of assignment to the plaintiff had expired,

¶94

therefore the plaintiff cannot claim declaration or injunction for those movies. The

¶95

10/13

¶96

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶97

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶98

plaintiff Counsel, in turn submit that, the period of assignment was perpetual and not expired.

¶99

18. The documents relied by the petitioner/plaintiff and the

¶100

respondent/defendant are subject to proof. The parties have not produced the censor certificates of the film to ascertain the producer and other documents to ascertain who was the first owner. From the available documents and pleadings, there are enough evidence to hold prima facie that the petitioner is for long period been exploiting the satellite right of the movies and it was only in the year 2019, the defendant has made a rival claim over the satellite right. All these 20 movies are old movies released not later than 10 years ago. All along it was the petitioner who was exploiting the copyright through satellite channels. Therefore, in view of the continuous, uninterrupted exploitation, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.

¶101

19. Therefore, the interim order of injunction granted on 24.03.2021 is

¶102

made absolute. The parties right over the suit schedule film shall be decided after

¶103

11/13

¶104

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶105

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶106

14.09.2021

¶107

trial.

¶108

Index : Yes/No. Internet :Yes/No.

¶109

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶110

12/13

¶111

O.A.No.172 of 2021 in C.S.No.116 of 2021

¶112

Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.

¶113

bsm

¶114

Pre-delivery order in
O.A.No.172 of 2021
in C.S.No.116 of 2021
14.09.2021

¶115

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶116

13/13

M/s.Raj Television Network Ltd. v. Silver Star Communication Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Raj Television Network Ltd. v. Silver Star Communication Ltd.

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

Bismi Biriyani Vs S.Abdul Raheem

M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited Vs M/s. Ennar Enterprises

M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited Vs M/s. Ennar Enterprises

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs Sri Ganapathi Dairy

M/s.Novex Communications Pvt. Vs Hotel Crown Plaza Adyar

M/s.Novex Communications Pvt. Vs Hotel Westin Velachery