Madras High Court
M/S.P.Jesygaa vs K.S.Srinivasan on 4 November, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.S.No.286 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :04.11.2019
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.No.61 of 2019
M/s.P.Jesygaa,
Proprietrix,
JVKDS Enterprises
No.48/2, 1st floor AVM Avenue
1st Main Road,
Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1.K.S.Srinivasan
Proprietor,
Vasan Visual Venture,
No.86, Velmurugan Street,
Valasarawakkam,
Chennai – 600 087.
2.K.S.Srinivasan
Proprietor,
Vasan Brothers,
No.86, Velmurugan Street,
Valasarawakkam,
Chennai – 600 087.
3.K.S.Srinivasan
Proprietor,
Shiva Shree Pictures,
No.86, Velmurugan Street,
Valasarawakkam, Chennai – 600 087.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.286 of 2014
4.Rajeswari,
Proprietrix,
Raaja Pushpa Picture,
No.17 A, Pasumpon Muthiramalinga Street,
Rajaji Colony, Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
5.M.Ramanathan,
Proprietor,
Raaj Film International
No.37 College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
6.V.Pazhanivel
Proprietor,
Ap Films Garden, Vp Films,
No.33/7, Raja Mannar Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
7.Tamil Film Producers' Council
Rep. by its Honorary Secretaries,
No.606, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 006.
8.Tamil Film Producer Trade Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
No.606, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 006.
9.Film and Television Producers'
Guild of South India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
B1, Rams Flat,
New No.19 (Old No.5),
Jagatheeswaran Street,
T.Nagar, Chenai – 600 017. ...Defendants
2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.286 of 2014
This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original
Side Rules read with Section 7 of Commercial Courts, Commercial
Apellate Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016) read with Section 55
and Section 62 of the Copyright Act and order VII Rule 1 o of the
Code of Civil Procedure prayed (a) declaring the plantiff is the sole
and absolute copyright owner in respect of telecasting 52 films
more fully set out in the Schedule of list hereunder through cable,
cable TV, Cable TV Channel, Set TV Channel, Set Top Box, etc.
throughout the area of entire Tamil Nadu as contemplated in the
respective agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the
respective producers;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants
their men, servants, agents, etc. from in any manner interfering or
infringing the copyright owned by the plaintiff in respect of
telecasting 52 movies more fully set out in the schedule of list
hereunder through cable, cable TV, Cable TV Channel, Set Top Box,
etc. throughout the area of entire Tamil Nadu, as contemplated in
the respective agreements entered into between the plaintiff and
the respective producers;
(c) cost of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : P.Neethi Kumar
For Defendants : Defendants set exparte
3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.286 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The suit has been filed for the following reliefs:
(a) declaring the plantiff is the sole and absolute copyright owner in respect of telecasting 52 films more fully set out in the Schedule of list appended to the plaint through cable, cable TV, Cable TV Channel, Set TV Channel, Set Top Box, etc., throughout the area of Tamil Nadu as contemplated in the respective agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the respective producers;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, agents, etc. from in any manner interfering or infringing the copyright owned by the plaintiff in respect of telecasting 52 movies more fully set out in the schedule of list appended to the plaint through cable, cable TV, Cable TV Channel, Set Top Box, etc., throughout the area of Tamil Nadu, as contemplated in the respective agreements entered into between 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.286 of 2014 the plaintiff and the respective producers;
(c) cost of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has entered into the agreements on 11.01.2018, 14.02.2018, 13.03.2018, 19.03.2018 and 26.03.2018 with defendants 1 to 6 where under defendants 1 to 6 assigned the copyright of 52 movies set out in the list of annexed along with the plaint to telecast the same through cable TV, Set Top Box etc., for the period of 99 years and further assured that the rights assigned under the assignment are for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The plaintiff is the absolute copyright holder for 52 movies. Defendants 7 to 9 have not acquired any copyright from the producer member by way of specific agreements and more so the society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act are banned from carrying on any business activity and, therefore, defendants 7 to 9 are not entitled to purchase the copyrights from their producer members and re-assigning or carrying on business with reference to the 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.286 of 2014 copyright to any third party for financial benefits. Defendants 7 to 9 on several occasions interfered with the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been filed.
4. Though suit summons were served on defendants 4, 6 to 9, they had not entered appearance either in person or through counsel. Therefore, defendants 4, 6 to 9 were set ex parte by this court vide order dated 10.06.2019. Despite paper publication effected against defendants 1 to 3 and 5, none appeared on behalf of them. Hence, defendants 1 to 3 and 5 were set exparte vide order dated 14.10.2019.
5. On the side of the plaintiff, the Authorised Signatory of the plaintiff Company was examined as P.W.1 and the following documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8.
6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.286 of 2014 Exhibit Date Description of documents P-1 11.01.2018 The photocopy of the Agreement of Assignment. P-2 14.02.2018 The photocopy of the Agreement of Assignment. P-3 13.03.2018 The photocopy of the Agreement of Assignment. P-4 19.03.2018 The photocopy of the Agreement of Assignment. P-5 26.03.2018 The photocopy of the Agreement of Assignment. P-6 11.06.2017 The photocopy of the Paper Publication. P-7 16.07.2017 The photocopy of the Paper Publication. P-8 24.10.2019 The photocopy of the Authorization letter
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the materials.
7. No document is admissible in evidence. All the documents filed by the plaintiff are photocopies. In the result, the suit is dismissed as no relief can be granted on the basis of inadmissible evidence. However, liberty is granted to file fresh suit with original documents.
04.11.2019 Index : Yes/No rst 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.286 of 2014 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., rst C.S.No.61 of 2019 04.11.2019 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in