Dismissed

M/S.Peppers Media P Ltd. v. M/S.Raj Television Network Ltd.

Madras HC14 Mar 2022CRL OP/24201/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras entertained a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash a complaint regarding copyright infringement. The court noted material factual disputes regarding the validity of assignment agreements and ownership rights between the parties. Consequently, it dismissed the petition, holding the matter must be resolved by the trial court upon recording evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with liberty to the parties to produce documents before the trial court to establish their rights, charges, and counter-charges.

M/S.Peppers Media P Ltd. Vs M/S.Raj Television Network Ltd. — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.03.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.24201 of 2016

¶6

and Crl.M.P.No.11531 of 2016

¶7

1.M/s.Peppers Media P LTD,

¶8

Rep. by its Managing Director, First Floor, No.5 First Street, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶9

Nachiappan

¶10

Director M/s.Peppers Media P LTD First Floor, No.5 First Street Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶11

Deepa Nachiappan Director M/s.Peppers Media P LTD First Floor, No.5 First Street Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. ... Petitioners/Accused

¶12

Vs.

¶13

M/s. Raj Television Network Ltd., Rep by its Admin Manager Mr.Suresh No.32 Poes Road, 2^nd Street,

¶14

Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ...Respondent/Complainant

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.2195 of 2016 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkateshwaran

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No.2195 of 2016, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

C.C.No.2195 of 2016 was filed by the respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 51, 63, 66 and 69 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

¶21

The allegations made in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

¶22

The respondent is a leading Television Network in Tamil Nadu. It entered into an assignment agreement dated 31.03.1999 with Mr.Alagappan Proprietor of M/s.Manikandan Finance, exclusive copyright holder of the cinematography of Tamil film 'Kalaignan' for assignment of the satellite TV broadcast rights, for a valid consideration of Rs.17,01,000/- for a perpetual period right from the date of agreement. But the petitioners/accused, namely, the first petitioner is running a Television in the name and style of M/s.Peppers Media P LTD, represented by its Directors, the second and third petitioners, without any right, telecasted the movie namely, Kalaignan on 28.02.2016 at 3.25 p.m. The respondent recorded the same. The CD is produced as an exhibit. By telecasting the movie 'Kalaignan' the petitioners used the respondent's copy rights. It is further alleged that the petitioners after knowing fully well that they did not have any right over the said movie and aware of the fact that the respondent is the execusive and only copy right holder of the movie had intentionally telecasted the movie in their channel and caused a huge loss to the respondent. Therefore this complaint.

¶23

This case was taken cognizance by the learned Judge for the offences under Sections Sections 51, 63, 66 and 69 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. Challenging the said complaint, this quash petition is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were granted the assignment rights for telecasting the movie 'Kalaignan' through a written agreement dated 26.10.2012. The right was assigned by one Mr.B.Saravanan. Mr.B.Saravanan got the copy rights through an agreement dated 12.06.2004 from Mr.K.Surathi, who in turn got the rights through an agreement dated 30.12.1994 from M/s.Global Enterprises. In response to a call from the respondent Managing Director, petitioners sent an email dated 29.02.2016 alleging the rights on the basis of the aforesaid agreement and clarified the right of telecasting the movie 'Kalaignan' in the Television. This e- mail was not responded by the respondent. The petitioners were not aware of any copy rights or other rights in favour of the

¶25

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

¶26

respondent. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence of infringment of copy right or other right. A person has made an offence only if the person knowingly infringes or abets the infringment of the copy right. There is no material to show that the petitioners were made aware of the copy rights granted in favour of the respondent.

¶27

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the agreement produced by the petitioners have no legal sanctity or force, for the reasons, the persons who assigned the telecast rights to the petitioners have no right at all in assiging the copy rights. On the other hand, the respondent had got copy right from the Proprietor of M/s.Manikandan Finance and the producer of the film 'Kalaignan' through an agreement dated 31.03.1999. The original film was handed over to the respondent and in support of this claim, letters given by M/s.Prasad Films Laboratories, dated 02.04.2009 and 09.04.2009 are produced. These documents clearly establish that one Mr.Alagappan Proprietor of M/s.Manikandan Finance is the lessor/producer of the film 'Kalaignan'. It also establishes that the persons from whom the petitioners claim that they acquired the copy rights, have no right at all in the film 'Kalaignan' to assign copy right.

¶28

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents now produced by the respondent have not been produced along with the complaint and some new documents have been entrusted before this Court. The documents now sought to be produced are as follows:

¶29

Sl.N o.	Date	Descript	ion
1	31.03.19 99	Agreement entered A.L.Alagappan Manikandan Financ Television Netwrok L	into b Propr e and td.	etween ietor, Raj
2.	02.04.20 09	Letter given by M/ Laboratories	s.Prasad	Films
3.	09.04.20 09	Letter given by Laboratories	Prasad	Film

¶30

This Court is of the view that these documents are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issue between the parties. Both parties claim right of telecasting the movie through different set of agreements. There are contradictory claims and there are disputed facts involved for adjudication. This Court

¶31

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

¶32

is of the considered view that the parties must go before the trial Court to produce the oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. This exercise cannot be done in this Court. In view of the same, this criminal original petition is dismissed giving liberty to the parties to produce the documents before the trial Court and establish their right, charges and counter charges.

¶33

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶38

sli To

¶39

The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.K.Venkateswaran, Advocate Sr.16976 +1cc to Mr.M.Arunachalam, Advocate Sr.17081

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.24201 of 2016

¶42

mg[co] srg 04/04/2022

¶43

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

M/S.Peppers Media P Ltd. v. M/S.Raj Television Network Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Peppers Media P Ltd. v. M/S.Raj Television Network 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

T.Balamurugan (M/a 32 Years) Vs the State Represented by

K.Sampath Vs R.Arumugam

N. Ganesh Vs the Union Territory of

M/S.Welfare Creations Rep. by Vs M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd.

V. Senthilkumar, Age 36 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

Arulprabhakar, Aged 46 Years Vs Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi