Allowed

M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd. v. M/S.Parameswara Art

Madras HC7 Jun 2022CS/924/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for a declaration of sole and exclusive copyright in the Telugu film 'TEMPER'. The producer had assigned satellite and broadcast rights to the plaintiff and, two days earlier, video rights to the second defendant. Holding the earlier video agreement unproved and possibly ante-dated, and applying section 18 of the Copyright Act to the assignment of a future work, the court upheld the later ass

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive copyright holder for broadcasting the film, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from exploiting it; costs awarded against the

M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd. Vs M/S.Parameswara Art — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

C.S.No. 924 of 2015

¶7

M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.M.Jyothi Basu, Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 28.

¶8

... Plaintiff

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. Parameswara Art Productions, Rep.by its Proprietor, Mr.B.Ganesh Babu, Plot No.761, Road No.39, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶11

Sri Balaji Videos, Rep.by its Proprietor, Niranjan Pansari, Shop No. 135 to 137, 1st Floor Babu Khan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶12

... Defendants

¶13

Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass Judgment

¶14

and a decree against the Defendants :

¶15

a) Declaration that the Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive copyright https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

holder for broadcasting the Telugu film ''TEMPER'' starring Junior NTR,

¶17

¶18

Kajal Agarwal & others through satellite Television Broadcast Direct to Home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P. TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio(all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, High definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, in flight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions) through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which may be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and models and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area and including all channels of Doordarshan, for a perpetual period of 99 years.

¶19

b) permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representatives, agents and anybody on behalf of the Defendants from in

¶20

¶21

any way exhibiting or exploiting the Telugu film ''TEMPER'' starring

¶22

Junior NTR, Kajal Agarwal & others through satellite Television Broadcast Direct to Home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P. TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio(all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, High definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, inflight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions) through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which may be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and models and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area and including all channels of Doordarshan for a perpetual period more particularly in the internet.

¶23

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

¶24

c) to pay cost.

¶25

¶26

This Civil Suit having been heard on 06.04.2022 in the presence of

¶27

Mr.Jose John, for M/s.King & Partridge, advocate for the Plaintiff herein

¶28

and Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Advocate for M/s.Ralph V. Manohar, Advocates for the 2nd Defendant herein, and the 1st defendant herein not appearing in person or by advocate and the said 1st defendant herein having been set ex-parte and upon reading the plaint filed herein and the other exhibits therein referred to and upon perusing the evidence adduced therein and having stood over for consideration till this date and coming on this day before this Court for orders the presence of said advocates for the parties hereto and this Court having observed that the first Defendant did not disclose to either the Plaintiff or the second Defendant that separate agreements had been executed with each of them and that consideration was received from both parties, although the first Defendant is the primary cause for this dispute, as recorded earlier, the first Defendant chose to remain ex parte in these proceedings, as a consequence, the evidence in relation to the first Defendant's agreements with the Plaintiff and the second Defendant, respectively, is not complete in the sense that the first Defendant could not be examined in relation thereto, It is ordered and decreed as follows :-

¶29

That M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd., Rep.by its authorized Signatory

¶30

Mr.M.Jyothi Basu, be and is hereby declared as the sole and exclusive https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ copyright holder for broadcasting the Telugu film ''TEMPER'' starring

¶31

¶32

Junior NTR, Kajal Agarwal & others through satellite Television Broadcast Direct to Home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P. TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio(all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, High definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, in flight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions) through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which shall be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and models and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area and including all channels of Doordarshan, for a perpetual period of 99 years.

¶33

That (1) M/s. Parameswara Art Productions, Rep.by its Proprietor, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.B.Ganesh Babu, (2) Sri Balaji Videos, Rep.by its Proprietor, Niranjan

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

Pansari, the Defendants herein their men, representatives, agents and anybody on behalf of the Defendants herein be and are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from in any way exhibiting or exploiting the Telugu film ''TEMPER'' starring Junior NTR, Kajal Agarwal & others through satellite Television Broadcast Direct to Home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P. TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio(all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, High definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, inflight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions) through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which may be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and models and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

and including all channels of Doordarshan for a perpetual period more

¶40

particularly in the internet.

¶41

That the second Defendant herein shall not be entitled to its counter claims.

¶42

That subject to the law of limitation, both the Plaintiff and the second Defendant shall be at liberty to institute appropriate legal proceedings against the first Defendant herein.

¶43

That the first Defendant herein shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as costs to the Plaintiff herein towards court fees, lawyer's fees, witness and other expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs to the second Defendant herein towards lawyer's fees, witness and other expenses.

¶44

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2022.

¶45

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm.Cases) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶46

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

ED 20.06.2022

C.S.No. 924 of 2015

DECREE

DATED : 07.06.2022

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶53

FOR APPROVAL : 20.06.2022

¶54

APPROVED ON : 22.06.2022

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶58

Judgment reserved on	06.04.2022
Judgment pronounced on	07.06.2022

¶59

CORAM

¶60

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶61

Civil Suit No.924 of 2015

¶62

M/s.Sun TV Network Ltd., Rep. by its authorized signatory, Mr.M.Jyothi Basu, Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. ... Plaintiff

¶63

vs.

¶64

1.M/s.Parameswara Art Productions, Rep. by its proprietor, Mr.B.Ganesh Babu, Plot No.761, Road No.39, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033.

¶65

2.Sri Balaji Videos, Rep. by its Proprietor, Niranjan Pansari, Shop No.135 to 137, First Floor, Babu Khan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ... Defendants

¶66

The suit is filed under Order VI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 55

¶67

& 62 of the Copyright Act and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC praying to

¶68

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ declaration that the Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive copyright holder for

¶69

¶70

broadcasting the Telugu film ''TEMPER'' starring Junior NTR, Kajal Agarwal & others through satellite Television Broadcast Direct to Home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P. TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio(all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, High definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, in flight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions) through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which may be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and models and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area and including all channels of Doordarshan, for a perpetual period of 99 years.

¶71

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

¶72

¶73

(b) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men,

¶74

representatives, agents and anybody on behalf of the Defendants from in any way exhibiting or exploiting the Telugu film ''TEMPER'' starring Junior NTR, Kajal Agarwal & others through satellite Television Broadcast Direct to Home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P. TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio(all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, High definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, inflight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions) through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which may be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and models and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area

¶75

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

¶76

¶77

and including all channels of Doordarshan for a perpetual period and for the

¶78

costs of the suit.

¶79

For Plaintiff : Mr.Jose John for M/s.King & Partridge

¶80

For Defendants : Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Advocate for M/s.RalphV.Manohar for D-2 D-1 set ex parte

¶81

JUDGMENT

¶82

The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff is the sole

¶83

and exclusive copyright holder of the Telugu feature film ''TEMPER'' and for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from in any way exhibiting or exploiting the above mentioned feature film.

¶84

The second Defendant filed a written statement along with a

¶85

counter claim for a declaration that the second Defendant is the sole and exclusive video copyright holder of the Telugu feature film ''TEMPER'' and for a permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff and the first Defendant

¶86

from in any way exhibiting or exploiting the video copyright of the above

¶87

mentioned feature film. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶88

¶89

The Plaintiff stated that it operates a renowned television network

¶90

in South India. The first Defendant is the producer of the Telugu feature film ''TEMPER'' starring Junior NTR, Kajal Agarwal and others. Under an agreement dated 13.11.2014(the Assignment Agreement), the first Defendant assigned the copyright in the above mentioned movie in favour of the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.7,75,00,000/-. As per the Assignment Agreement, the Plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs.77,50,000/- on the date of execution of the agreement; a sum of Rs.1,16,25,000/- on completion of 50% of film shooting; a sum of Rs.1,16,25,000/- during the audio launch of the film; a sum of Rs.3,87,50,000/- to M/s.PVP Capital Ltd. one day prior to the theatrical release; a sum of Rs.42,50,000/- one day prior to the theatrical release to the first Defendant; a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the first Defendant on handing over the lab letter and censor certificate to the Plaintiff; and the last installment of Rs.25,00,000/- on the first Defendant handing over the digital intermediate data files and the like of the said movie. The Plaintiff further stated that the above mentioned consideration was paid in full on various dates, and the receipt thereof was acknowledged by the first Defendant in the supplementary agreement between the Plaintiff and the

¶91

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

¶92

first Defendant on 11.02.2015 (the Supplementary Agreement).

¶93

¶94

According to the Plaintiff, the movie was tentatively titled as

¶95

''Nenorakkam'' when the Assignment Agreement was executed. Subsequently, when the Supplementary Agreement was executed, the film was re-titled as ''TEMPER''. The Plaintiff stated that the assignment was wide in scope and covered the exclusive right to broadcast the movie on satellite television, broadband, VCD, DVD, etc. The Plaintiff also stated that the first Defendant issued a letter dated 12.11.2014 to Prasad Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (Prasad Lab) and confirmed the assignment in favour of the Plaintiff. By the said letter, Prasad Lab was directed to deliver the censored version of the negatives of the movie along with sound negatives to the Plaintiff. Pursuant thereto, by letter dated 13.11.2014 to the Plaintiff, Prasad Lab confirmed the assignment of copyright. By a subsequent letter dated 12.02.2015, Prasad Lab reiterated the assignment of the copyright to the Plaintiff. Upon receipt of the full sale consideration, the first Defendant handed over the censor certificate, the DPX files, HD copy with 5.1 audio, 5.1 audio wave files, posters, sub-titles and trailer on 12.02.2015. The movie was released on 13.02.2015. The Plaintiff exploited the songs and clippings of the movies numerous times in its channels and also telecast the

¶96

movie on its channel Gemini TV on 21.06.2015, 09.08.2015 and

¶97

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

¶98

18.10.2015.

¶99

¶100

In these circumstances, the Plaintiff stated that the second

¶101

Defendant uploaded the movie on Google's Internet platform ''YouTube''. The Plaintiff alleges that the second Defendant had no right to upload the movie on ''YouTube'' and that it amounts to infringement of the copyright. Immediately upon discovering the infringement, the Plaintiff stated that it called upon ''YouTube'' to take down the movie. In response, YouTube requested the Plaintiff to obtain a court order in view of the conflicting claims by the Plaintiff and the second Defendant. The suit was filed in these facts and circumstances.

¶102

The second Defendant filed a written statement and counter claim. In the written statement, the second Defendant stated that the copyright in the video was not assigned to the Plaintiff. According to the second Defendant, the Assignment Agreement and Supplementary Agreement, which were relied upon by the Plaintiff, are fabricated. The second Defendant stated that the first Defendant assigned exclusive video copyright in all digital formats such as VCD, DVD, Blu Ray, etc. to the second Defendant by an Agreement dated 11.11.2014 (the Video Agreement). The second Defendant further stated that the first Defendant agreed not to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assign such rights to any third parties. According to the second Defendant,

¶103

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

¶104

¶105

the assignment to the Plaintiff is in violation of the terms and conditions of

¶106

the Video Agreement, which is prior to the Assignment Agreement. The second Defendant stated that he paid the valuable consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- for the rights assigned under the Video Agreement. The second Defendant further stated that he was given the DPX files, HD copy with 5.1 audio, 5.1 audio wave files, posters, etc. by the first Defendant. The second Defendant also stated that his rights are confined to video rights in digital formats and that no rights are being claimed with regard to the theatrical or satellite broadcast. According to the second Defendant, the DPX files are basically frame by frame segments of the movie and such files can only be given by the producer/content creator. The counter claim arises in the said facts and circumstances. The first Defendant failed to enter appearance and file a written statement upon receipt of suit summons. Therefore, the first Defendant was set ex parte .

¶107

Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed

¶108

on 11.11.2019:

¶109

Whether the alleged Agreement between the

¶110

second Defendant and the first Defendant is a concluded contract, for claiming assignment of copyright of the said movie?

¶111

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

¶112

¶113

Whether the Plaintiff or the second Defendant

¶114

is the copyright holder of the Telugu movie ''TEMPER''?

¶115

Whether the Assignment Agreement dated 13.11.2014 executed in favour of the Plaintiff by the first Defendant, affecting the rights which have already been assigned in favour of the second Defendant is valid?

¶116

To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled?

¶117

The Plaintiff adduced evidence by examining Mr.M.Jothy Basu as P.W.1. Nine documents were exhibited through P.W.1 as Exs.P1 to P9. P.W.1 was cross examined by the Defendants. The second Defendant adduced evidence by examining Mr.Niranjan Pansari, Proprietor, as D.W.1. In course of examination in chief, nine documents were exhibited through D.W.1 as Exs.D1 to D9. D.W.1 was cross examined by the Plaintiff.

¶118

Oral submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff were advanced by

¶119

Mr.Jose John, learned counsel, for M/s.King and Partridge; and on behalf of

¶120

the second Defendant by M/s.Chitra Sampath, learned senior counsel, for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.Ralph V.Manohar, learned counsel. As indicated earlier, the first

¶121

¶122

Defendant was set ex parte on 13.08.2018 and did not participate in further proceedings.

¶123

Issue No.1:

¶124

The first issue relates to the Video Agreement between the first and second Defendants. The Video Agreement is dated 11.11.2014 and was exhibited as Ex.D3. Since the Video Agreement, ex facie , predates the Assignment Agreement, the validity of the Video Agreement should be examined first. The Video Agreement appears to have been executed on non-judicial stamp paper purchased in Andhra Pradesh, which bears the date 24.09.2014, and is titled as an “Agreement for VCD's, DVD's Rights”. The parties to the Agreement are M/s.Parameshwara Art Productions, in the capacity of Assignor, and M/s.Sri Balaji Video, in the capacity of Assignee. Both parties have signed the Video Agreement. The original Video Agreement produced before the Court also bears the signature of one witness but the address of the witness is not mentioned. The Agreement specifies the name of the movie as ''TEMPER''. It also indicates the names of the main actors, the Director, the Producer and the Music Director. Clause 1 of the Video Agreement specifies that the assignors irrevocably assign to the assignees the video copyrights in all / any digital formats for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perpetual period. As per Clause 2, the Internet, IPTV, video on demand

¶125

¶126

rights and the like are assigned on non-exclusive basis. Clause 2 also provides that the assignor will not exhibit or relay the movie on Internet by

¶127

himself and shall not transfer the Internet rights to any third parties(excluding satellite channel). Clause 3 thereof specifies that VCDs, DVDs and Blurays can be released after 101 days from the first theatrical release of the movie in India. Clause 4 stipulates the consideration. The consideration is specified as Rs.14,00,000/-. The sum of Rs.14,00,000/- is required to be paid in the manner specified in sub-clauses (a) to (c) thereof. Sub-clause (a) refers to the payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cash on the date of execution. Sub-clause (b) refers to a post-dated cheque dated 14.02.2015 for a sum of Rs.12,40,000/-. Sub-clause (c) refers to the deduction of TDS of Rs.1,40,000/-. Thus, the Video Agreement provides for the payment of consideration in future by way of a post-dated cheque, except for the sum of Rs.20,000/- which was payable on the date of execution in cash. It should be noticed that the Video Agreement is for assignment of certain rights on sole and exclusive basis and others on nonexclusive basis. These video rights include VCD, DVD, Bluray, mobile, telephone rights, etc. As regards Internet, IPTV and video on demand, the rights are non- exclusive. It is pertinent to notice that the movie ''TEMPER'' was released only in February 2015. Therefore, as on the date of the Video https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Agreement, the movie was still under production. Consequently, Clause 3

¶128

¶129

of the Video Agreement records that the movie can be released on VCD,

¶130

DVD and Blurays after 101 days from the first theatrical release. As such,

¶131

it is an assignment of a future work. Under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Copyright Act) an assignment of a future work takes effect only when the work comes into existence. Section 18, in relevant part, is as under:

¶132

' ' 18. Assignment of copyright. —

¶133

(1) The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof: Provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.''

¶134

11. Thus, if valid, the Video Agreement would take effect upon the

¶135

completion of the movie ''TEMPER''. As stated earlier, the said movie was completed in February 2015 and released on 13.02.2015. The second Defendant adduced evidence through Mr.Niranjan Pansari, who was examined as D.W.1. The witness to the Video Agreement was not

¶136

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examined. While the Video Agreement provided for the payment of

¶137

¶138

Rs.20,000/- in cash on 11.11.2014, it does not record that the said amount

¶139

was paid and received by the first Defendant. Therefore, the second Defendant should have adduced evidence with regard to the payment of the said sum. The second Defendant did not adduce documentary evidence with regard to the payment of the sum of Rs.20,000/- by showing a withdrawal from its bank account on the said date or on a date proximate thereto. The post-dated cheque for Rs.12,40,000/- was also not exhibited in evidence. The proof affidavit of Mr.Niranjan Pansari also does not speak of the payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash on 11.11.2014 or of the post-dated cheque for Rs.12,40,000/-. Indeed, no particulars in such regard are set out therein. In course of cross-examination, however, in reply to Question 6, D.W.1 stated that he paid Rs.20,000/- by cash on 11.11.2014 and also issued a post-dated cheque for Rs.12,40,000/-.

¶140

The second Defendant exhibited the TDS form for the assessment year 2015-2016 (Ex.D5) to establish payment of consideration. This form, which describes Niranjan Pansari as the deductor, indicates that a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid by the second Defendant to the first Defendant on 14.03.2015 after deducting a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as TDS. This does not

¶141

tally with the Video Agreement which refers to a post-dated cheque for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.12,40,000/-. In fact, if Rs.1,40,000/- is deducted from Rs.14,00,000/-,

¶142

¶143

the net amount would be Rs.12,60,000/- and not Rs.12,40,000/-. Besides,

¶144

the TDS certificate indicates that the entire sale consideration was only paid

¶145

on 14.03.2015, and that the TDS was remitted to the Income Tax Department on 15.04.2015. Although D.W.1 stated in reply to Question 8 that Rs.12,40,000/- was paid by cheque on 14.02.2015, this answer contradicts the TDS Certificate. Hence, the documentary evidence adduced by the second Defendant does not establish that any consideration passed on 11.11.2014. While consideration under a contract may be legitimately paid subsequent to the date of execution thereof, in this case, the TDS Certificate (evidence relating to payment of consideration) contradicts and detracts from the credibility of the Video Agreement as regards the issuance of a post-dated cheque for Rs.12,40,000/- on the date of execution thereof and the deduction of TDS on the said date. Ex.D5 does, however, indicate that a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid by the second Defendant to the first Defendant on 14.03.2015. In addition, it is pertinent to note that D.W.1 stated in his proof affidavit that the first Defendant handed over the DPX files, 5.1 Audio files and other materials to the second Defendant upon receipt of the sum of Rs.14,00,000/-. Moreover, the second Defendant exhibited the DVD cover and the DPX files as Ex.D6-9. D.W.1 was not cross-examined on these aspects. These documents and the oral evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lend credence to the contentions of the second Defendant with regard to

¶146

¶147

payment of consideration in March 2015 and the receipt of DPX files from

¶148

the first Defendant thereafter.

¶149

The Plaintiff pointed out that the spelling of Parameswara in Parameshwara Arts Productions in the Video Agreement of 11.11.2014 does not match the spelling in the other documents, wherein Parameswara is spelt without the letter 'h'. By contrast, it is spelt as Parameshwara in the Video Agreement. Without doubt, as contended by the Plaintiff, the spelling of Parameswara in all other documents on record, with the exception of the Video Agreement, is without the letter “h'. Solely on that basis, it cannot be concluded that the Video Agreement is not valid; nonetheless, when viewed in the light of the contradictory evidence on payment of consideration, the inference that follows is that the credibility of the Video Agreement is questionable especially as regards the date of execution thereof. It bears repetition, however, that the evidence on record leads to the inference that a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid by the second Defendant to the first Defendant, albeit on 14.03.2015. By 14.03.2015, the Assignment Agreement and even the Supplementary Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff had been executed. The inferences and conclusions on the

¶150

basis of the above discussion should await the discussion on the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issues.

¶151

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

¶152

¶153

Issue Nos.2 , 3 and 4:

¶154

Issue No.2 relates to whether the Plaintiff or the second Defendant

¶155

is the owner of the copyright in the Telugu movie ''TEMPER'' and issue No.3 relates to whether the Assignment Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff is valid. Issue No.4 deals with any other reliefs. Since these issues are entwined, they are dealt with jointly. The Plaintiff relied upon the Assignment Agreement (Ex.P3), which is subsequent to the Video Agreement by two days. By the Assignment Agreement, the first Defendant assigned the exclusive copyright in respect of satellite television broadcast, direct-to-home broadcast and all other rights connected there with as mentioned in Clause 6 to the Plaintiff. Under Clause 4, the total consideration was specified as Rs.7,75,00,000/-. Clause 6 states that the assignee will be entitled to broadcast the movie through world satellite television broadcast, cable television, direct to home broadcast, Internet, computers, VCD, DVD, etc. Thus, Clause 6 subsumes and is in conflict with the video rights claimed by the second Defendant under the Video Agreement. Under Clause 8, the assignor agreed not to assign any of the rights mentioned in Clause 6 to any third party. Clause 9 stipulates that the

¶156

assignee shall have the exclusive rights mentioned in the Assignment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Agreement from the date of the Agreement although the actual telecast date

¶157

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

¶158

¶159

is only on 10.05.2015. This Agreement refers to the title of the movie as

¶160

''Nenorakkam'' by indicating, however, that the said title is tentative.

¶161

The Plaintiff also placed reliance on the Supplementary Agreement (Ex.P5). The Supplementary Agreement refers to the fact that the movie was tentatively titled as ''Nenorakkam'' and subsequently titled as ''TEMPER''. Clause 4 of the Supplementary Agreement records that the assignor received the full sale consideration of Rs.7,75,00,000/-. The manner of receipt of the consideration is also specified. Under Clause 5, it is recorded that the assignor delivered the lab letter confirming the rights of the assignee and that the assignor has simultaneously handed over the digital intermediate data file of the film to the assignor. The Plaintiff has also placed the censor certificate dated 11.02.2015 (Ex.P6) in respect of the public exhibition of the movie. The confirmation letter from Prasad Lab dated 10.02.2015 (Ex. P7) is also on record. By virtue of Section 18 of the Copyright Act, this assignment also is in respect of future work and would take effect in February 2015. However, it should be noted that the Plaintiff paid the total sale consideration of Rs.7,75,00,000/- in four tranches on 13.11.2014, 24.11.2014, 30.01.2014 and 04.02.2015. Consequently, as on

¶162

the date of the work coming into existence, the Plaintiff had paid the entire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sale consideration. While the assignment in favour of the Plaintiff came

¶163

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

¶164

¶165

into existence only in February 2015, the clauses in the Assignment Agreement, namely, Clauses 8 and 9 by which the assignor agreed not to assign the rights under the Assignment Agreement to any third parties would take effect from the date of the Agreement. Significantly, such clauses are not contained in the Video Agreement. Therefore, with effect from 13.11.2014, the first Defendant was restrained from assigning any of the rights specified in Clause 6 of the Assignment Agreement to any third party. The rights covered by Clause 6 include Internet, VCD, DVD and related rights. Upon closely examining the Assignment Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement and the other evidence on record, it is concluded that the Assignment Agreement is valid and that the Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in respect of rights assigned thereunder.

¶166

Upon analysis of the evidence recorded on all the issues, it follows that the second Defendant has failed to establish that any consideration was paid on the alleged date of execution of the Video Agreement. Indeed, the contradictions between the Video Agreement and the TDS Certificate (Ex.D5) lead to the conclusion that the entire consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid only on 14.03.2015. This indicates that the Video Agreement may have been ante-dated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nevertheless, as stated earlier, the second Defendant has established

¶167

¶168

payment of consideration to the first Defendant in March 2015 and the assertion that the DPX files were received from the first Defendant is liable

¶169

to be accepted in light of the evidence on record. For the sake of completing the narration, it should be noticed that the DVD was released by the second Defendant in May 2015 and that the movie was uploaded on YouTube around that time. It is possible and even likely that the first Defendant did not disclose to either the Plaintiff or the second Defendant that separate agreements had been executed with each of them and that consideration was received from both parties. Although the first Defendant is the primary cause for this dispute, as recorded earlier, the first Defendant chose to remain ex parte in these proceedings. As a consequence, the evidence in relation to the first Defendant's agreements with the Plaintiff and the second Defendant, respectively, is not complete in the sense that the first Defendant could not be examined in relation thereto.

¶170

In view of the above conclusions, the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for against both the Defendants. The second Defendant is, however, not entitled to its counter claims. Subject to the law of limitation, it is open to both the Plaintiff and

¶171

the second Defendant to institute appropriate legal proceedings against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first Defendant. Since the first Defendant is the primary cause of the

¶172

¶173

dispute, the first Defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as costs to the

¶174

Plaintiff towards court fees, lawyer's fees, witness and other expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs to the second Defendant towards lawyer's fees, witness and other expenses.

¶175

Plaintiff's witness:

¶176

1.Mr.M.Jothy Basu : P.W.1

¶177

Second Defendant's witness:

¶178

1.Mr.Niranjan Pansari : D.W.1

¶179

Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:

¶180

Sl.No	Exhibits	Date	Particulars of Documents
1.	Ex.P1	14.11.2013	Authorization letter
2.	Ex.P2	12.11.2014	Letter from the first Defendant to Lab
3.	Ex.P3	13.11.2014	Assignment Agreement between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant.
4.	Ex.P4	13.11.2014	Lab letter to the Plaintiff
5.	Ex.P5	11.02.2015	SupplementaryAgreement
6.	Ex.P6	11.02.2015	Censor certificate
7.	Ex.P7	12.02.2015	Lab letter
8.	Ex.P8	12.02.2015	Receipt of materials with respect to the movie
9.	Ex.P9	16.10.2015	Counter notification bythe first Defendant

¶181

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

¶182

¶183

Documents exhibited by the second Defendant:

¶184

Sl. No.	Exhibits	Date	Particulars of Documents
1.	Ex.D1	-	Web Page from www.andrawisher,com
2.	Ex.D2	-	Web Page from www.desiretrees.com
3.	Ex.D3	11.11.2014	Agreement executed by the first Defendant in favour of the second Defendant
4.	Ex.D4	-	PAN Card of the first Defendant
5.	Ex.D5	20.05.2015	TDS Form No.16A
6.	Ex.D6	-	DVD Cover released in May 2015 by the second Defendant.
7.	Ex.D7	-	Temper DPX files in Seagate Hard Disk Drives
8.	Ex.D8	-	Temper DPX 1^sthalf - frame by frame movie
9.	Ex.D9	-	Temper DPX 2^ndHalf – Frame by Frame Movie

¶185

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

¶186

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

M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd. v. M/S.Parameswara Art

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd. v. M/S.Parameswara Art

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 Exim Bank Of India and another Vs Loyal Credit and Investment Ltd. and another

Bhuvaneshwari Nagar and Vgp Selva Nagar Resident Welfare Association Vs The District Collector

Smt.P.Saroja Vs The Assistant Electrical Egineer

Cipla Limited Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

M/s.Meera Financial Consultancy Services and 2 others Vs B.K.Divya

M/s. Godaddy.com Llc and another Vs M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited