T.R.Kumaran Vs Bipin H.Shah and Another

Ultra Media 7 Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, No.1-C, Thacker Indistrial Estate, NM Joshi Marg, Shastri Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Lower Parel, East, Maharashtra-400 011. ... Defendants

¶13

PRAYER : Plaint filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 read with Order IV Rule 1 O.S.Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, prays for the Judgment and Decree against the

¶14

1/10

¶15

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

¶16

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶17

defendants as follows:

¶18

(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the absolute entire World Exclusive Internet Webcasting, Website Right of the suit schedule films through server or any other scientific mode, without any geographical area restrictions to exploit the specified rights to the Public or Private viewing, Browsing Vicable (co-Axial, Fiber Optic) or any other modes and Exclusive Internet and all platforms and all other internet related rights, Web based technology rights for entire World, FM, Private Radio Broadcasting Rights (Sound) for entire India and in any part of the world and public or private people or company individual top browse the said rights of the films mentioned in the Deed of Assignment dated 27.01.2020, which are more fully described in the suit schedule hereunder, for a perpetual period of 72 years from the date of Deed of Assignment dated 27.01.2020;

¶19

(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents, servants, or their representatives, anybody on their behalf or assigns from in any manner from infringing the copyrights and exclusive rights assigned to the plaintiff by Deed of Assignment dated 27.01.2020 in respect of the entire World Exclusive Internet Webcasting, Website Right of the suit schedule films through server or any other scientific mode, without any geographical area restrictions to exploit the specified rights to the Public or Private viewing, Browsing Vicable (Co-Axial, Fiber Optic) or any other modes pertaining to the rights specified in the Deed of Assignment dated 27.01.2020 and Exclusive Internet and all platforms and all other internet

¶20

2/10

¶21

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

¶22

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶23

related rights, Web based technology rights for entire World, FM, Private Radio Broadcasting Rights (Sound) for entire India and in any part of the world and public or private people or company individual top browse the said rights of the films mentioned in the Deed of Assignment dated 27.0.2020, which are more fully described in the suit schedule hereunder, for a perpetual period of 72 years from the date of Deed of Assignment dated 27.01.2020; and

¶24

(c) directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally, the damages of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization, caused to the plaintiff by illegally telecasting the suit picture films and thereby caused the infringement of copy rights of the suit picture films, more fully described in the schedule hereunder; and

¶25

(d) to direct the Defendant to pay the cost of the suit.

¶26

For Plaintiffs : Mr.E.Senthilkumar for M/s.M.Kempraj

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the entire World Exclusive Internet Webcasting rights over the suit schedule movies; for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the suit schedule movies; and for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages. In

¶29

3/10

¶30

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

¶31

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶32

addition, the plaintiff prayed for costs.

¶33

After the suit was filed, a memorandum of compromise dated 20.12.2024 was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. In terms thereof, the first defendant agreed not to telecast 14 suit schedule mentioned movies on any platform, such as Youtube or other OTT platforms. The first defendant also agreed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation. This amount was paid to the plaintiff. Based on this compromise, the plaintiff agreed to the dismissal of the suit against the first defendant. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 08.01.2025, the suit was disposed of as against the first defendant in terms of memorandum of compromise dated 20.12.2024. After noticing that suit summons was served on the second defendant on 16.05.2024 and that the second defendant had not entered appearance in spite of service of suit summons, the second defendant was set ex parte on the same date.

¶34

Thereafter, the plaintiff adduced evidence through himself. The plaintiff filed proof affidavit dated 22.01.2025. In course of examination-in-

¶35

4/10

¶36

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

¶37

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶38

chief on 22.01.2025, 12 documents were exhibited through the plaintiff/PW1 as Exs.P1 to P12.

¶39

Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Ex.P7, which is an agreement dated 27.01.2020. He pointed out that all the 21 movies, which form the subject of the suit, were assigned under the said agreement to the plaintiff by Sureshkumar Agarwal, Proprietor, Siddharth Electronics. He also referred to Ex.P11, which is a letter dated 22.03.2021 from the second defendant to the plaintiff. On such basis, he submitted that

¶40

the second defendant agreed to not broadcast the suit schedule movies as a gesture of goodwill. He also submitted that the second defendant agreed to withdraw the disputed movies completely, if the said defendant finds that the rights of the plaintiff supersedes that of the second defendant. In spite of issuing such reply on 22.03.2021, learned counsel contends that such action was not taken by the second defendant.

¶41

In order to establish the claims made in the suit, the plaintiff exhibited 12 documents. The plaintiff's rights in the suit schedule movies

¶42

5/10

¶43

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

¶44

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶45

are traced from Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P4 is the document under which the

¶46

plaintiff's immediate predecessor-in-interest, Siddharth Electronics, acquired rights in these movies. The confirmation letter given by Santha Films to the laboratory and the lab confirmation letter have been exhibited as Exs.P5 and P6. As contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff, Ex.P7 discloses that the said Siddharth Electronics assigned its rights to the plaintiff perpetually upon receipt of a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-.

¶47

On examining the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and in the

¶48

absence of contra evidence from the second defendant, the claim for declaration and permanent injunction stands proved. As regards the claim for damages, Ex.P7 discloses that a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid as consideration by the plaintiff to the assignor. Such consideration is in respect of 21 movies. In the plaint, the plaintiff asserts that his copyright was infringed with regard to about 14 movies. The amount claimed as damages is roughly 70% of the consideration paid for the assignment, and qualifies as reasonable compensation for loss. In these circumstances, the claim of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages also stands proved. The

¶49

6/10

¶50

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

¶51

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶52

plaintiff is, however, not entitled to interest on this sum at 24% per annum since it is a claim for damages and there is no contractual rate. Interest is therefore, awarded at 6% per annum. As the successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. The second defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff an aggregate sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses.

¶53

In the result, the suit is decreed against the second defendant in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 13 of the plaint, but the relief of damages shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The second defendant shall also pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.

¶54

05.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/ Non-speaking order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kal

¶55

7/10

¶56

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

¶57

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶58

Plaintiff's witness:

¶59

Mr.T.R.Kumaran - P.W.1

¶60

Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:

¶61

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
Ex.P1	The photocopy of the agreement of lease in respect of 3 films between M/s.Veeralakshmi conbines and M/s.Santha Films dated 23.05.1983.
Ex.P2	The photocopy of the agreement of lease in respect of 8 films between PSV Pictures and M/s.Santha Films dated 13.07.1988.
Ex.P3	The photocopy of the agreement of lease in respect of 2 films between M/s.Veeralakshmi combines and M/s.Santha Films dated 07.07.1989.
Ex.P4	The photocopy of the agreement of lease in respect of 21 films between M/s.Santha Films and Siddharth Electronics dated 02.08.2007.
Ex.P5	The photocopy of the confirmation letter given by Santha Films to LAB dated 02.08.2007.
Ex.P6	The photocopy of the lab confirmation letter given byLabs to Siddharth Electronics dated 21.08.2007.
Ex.P7	The photocopy of the agreement of lease in respect of suit schedule films between M/s.Siddharth Elect and the plaintiff dated 27.01.2020. (original is produced, compared and returned to the plaintiff's counsel.
Ex.P8	Thephotocopyof the letter sent to the 2^nddefendant

¶62

8/10

¶63

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

¶64

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.92 of 2024

¶65

*Exhibits*	*Documents*
	bytheplaintiff dated 28.02.2021)
Ex.P9	The photocopy of the letter sent to the 1^stdefendant bytheplaintiff dated 11.03.2021.
Ex.P10	The office copy of the legal notice sent to the defendants bytheplaintiff dated 19.03.2021.
Ex.P11	The photocopy of the reply letter from the 2^nd defendant dated 22.03.2021.
Ex.P12	The original non-starter report in PIMS No.118 of 2023 issued by Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority, Chennai dated 29.12.2023.