Madras High Court
Anjugam Films Private Ltd vs Dish Tv India Limited on 29 April, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 02.03.2023
Pronounced on 29.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
1.Anjugam Films Private Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
G.Rajendran,
Anna Arivalayam,
Nos.367 & 369 Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Vice President (Finance)
G.Rajendran,
Anna Arivalayam,
Nos.367 & 369 Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Dish TV India Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Essel House, B-10,
Lawrence Road Industrial Area,
Delhi – 110 035.
2. Peppermint Private Limited,
Represented by its Director,
B-90 / 003, Shubangan Building,
Opp. Sarita Enclave, Poonam Sagar,
Mira Road,
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 26
C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
Thane, Maharastra – 401 107.
3.C.Jamshad
Sole Proprietor,
M/s.The Show People,
Flat No.7, B6, Lakshmi Nagar,
1st Street, Alwarthirunagar,
Chennai 600 087.
4.K.S.Srinivasan,
Director,
M/s.Vasans Visual Ventures,
Old No.28, New No.10, 92nd Street,
18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai 600 083. ... Defendants
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC read with
Order IV Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with
Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957,
a) To direct the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and
severally to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of
Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only)
towards damages, loss of business and restitution of
unjust enrichment together with interest at rate of
12% per annum from date of plaint till realization;
b) To grant an order of permanent injunction
restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and
severally, their men, staff, agents, servants,
employees, programmers, assigns, representatives,
distributors, dealers and all other persons claiming
through or under them or however otherwise from
in anyway, directly or indirectly broadcasting,
reproducing, publishing, telecasting, adapting or
creating any derivative works of the Tamil Film
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 26
C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
“BOSS (e) BASKARAN” or any part thereof;
c) To direct the 1st and 2nd defendants to surrender to
the plaintiffs for destruction all CDs, DVDs, Blu
Ray Discs, hard drives and any other electronic
storage media containing the Tamil Film “BOSS (e)
BASKARAN” or any part thereof;
d) To direct the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay costs of
the suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.Richardson Wilson
For D1 : Mr.M.Narendran and
Mr.D.Prajeesh for
M/s.King & Patrige
For D2 : Mr.A.Chidambaram
JUDGMENT
This Suit has been filed jointly by the plaintiffs. This suit was argued simultaneously along with C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.603 of 2019.
2. The facts are almost identical save that the 3rd and the 4th defendants in the present suit are different from the 3rd, 4th and the 5th defendants in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.603 of 2019 and the subject matter of the dispute pertains to copyright violation of different movies. The ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 contesting defendants in both the suits are the 1st and 2nd defendants.
3. In the present suit, the dispute pertains to a Tamil Feature Film “Boss (Engira) Baskaram” [hereinafter referred to as ‘Boss (E) Baskaran’]. In C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.603 of 2019, dispute pertains to a Tamil Feature Film “VELLITHIRAI”.
4. This suit has been filed for the following relief:-
a) Direct the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Crores Only) towards damages, loss of business and restitution of unjust enrichment together with interest at rate of 12% per annum from date of plaint till realization;
b) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally, their men, staff, agents, servants, employees, programmers, assigns, representatives, distributors, dealers and all other persons claiming through or under them or however otherwise from in anyway, directly or indirectly broadcasting, reproducing, publishing, telecasting, adapting or creating any derivative works of the films "BOSS (e) BASKARAN" or any part of the films or in any other way infringe the Plaintiff's exclusive copyrights over the said movies;
c) Direct the 1st and 2nd Defendants to surrender to the Plaintiff for destruction all CDs, DVDs, Blu Ray Discs, hard drives and any other electronic storage media containing the movies "BOSS (e) BASKARAN"
or any part thereof;
d) Direct the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay costs of the suit;
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
5. The plaintiffs claim copyright over the aforesaid movie viz., “Boss (E) Baskaran” on the strength of Ex.P3 Assignment Agreement dated 09.08.2010 signed between the 3rd defendant and the 1st plaintiff and Ex.P4 Agreement dated 30.03.2011 signed between the plaintiffs as per which the copyright was assigned in favour of the 2nd plaintiff.
6. The defence of the contesting 1st and 2nd defendants is similar to the defence of the same defendants in C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.603 of 2019 which pertains to the Tamil Feature Film “VELLITHIRAI” which was broadcasted by the 1st defendant in their channel i.e., DTH platform viz., ‘DISH TV’ on 18.10.2018 at about 03.15 p.m.
7. The allegations of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that in violation of Ex.P3 Assignment Agreement dated 09.08.2010 and Ex.P4 Agreement dated 30.03.2011, the 1st defendant had broadcasted the film “Boss (E) Baskaran” illegally on 18.10.2018 at about 3.15 pm on its DTH platform viz., ‘DISH TV’.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
8. The learned Counsel of the 2nd plaintiff by Ex.P5 E-mail dated 24.10.2018 had informed the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant had infringed the copyright by broadcasting the aforesaid film along with the film named “VELLITHIRAI” (film which is subject matter of C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.603 of 2019) and thus, issued a cease and desist notice and informed the defendant herein that a formal legal notice will be sent in due course for damages.
9. By Ex.P6 E-mail dated 25.10.2018, the 1st defendant replied to the aforesaid legal notice through its Legal Department stating that neither the 1st defendant had violated the copyright nor caused any financial loss to the 2nd plaintiff.
10. That apart, in Ex.P6 E-mail reply dated 25.10.2018, the 1 st defendant informed the 2nd plaintiff that the 1st defendant had signed Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018 with the 2nd defendant and 1st defendant and it is on the strength of Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018, the respective movies were broadcasted by the 1st ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 defendant.
11. That apart, it was specifically stated that the 2nd defendant had granted the 1st defendant an unambiguous and a valid license to broadcast both the films in their Direct-to-Home (DTH) platform under the Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018.
12. It was further stated that as per Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018 signed between 1st and 2nd defendants also was based on the representations and warranties and indemnities by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant and that after the 2nd defendant represented to the 1st defendant that they had derived their rights to the license in the respective films.
13. The 2nd plaintiff had later issued Ex.P7 Legal Notice dated 03.11.2018 to both the 1st and 2nd defendants which was replied by the 1st defendant by Ex.P8 Reply Notice dated 04.11.2018. It is in this background the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the aforesaid relief.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
14.In reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, written statements were filed by both the contesting defendants namely the 1st and the 2nd defendants.
15. The 1st defendant has reiterated the position in the replies to the notices sent by the 2nd plaintiff in its written statement.
16. In the written statement, the 1st defendant further stated that after the receipt of Ex.P5 Notice dated 24.10.2018 of the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st defendant has refrained from broadcasting of the respective movies.
17. In the written statement, the 1st defendant has reiterated that the 1st defendant is a bonafide licensee of the respective film under Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018 signed between the 1st and 2nd defendants and that the 1st defendant has right to be indemnified by the 2nd defendant.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
18. That apart, the 1st defendant has questioned the basis for claim for damages for Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only) in the plaintiff.
19. The 2nd defendant on the other hand in its written submission has referred to an Agreement dated 29.12.2011 signed between the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and another Agreement dated 11.02.2015 between M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and R.Subramani and Ex.D11 Agreement of Memorandum dated 27.02.2015 between R.Subramani and the 2nd defendant, pursuant to which the 2nd defendant signed Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018 with the 1st defendant.
20. The Agreement dated 29.12.2011 between the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and the Agreement dated 11.02.2015 between S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 Mr.P.Babu and R.Subramani have been referred to as link document in Ex.D11 Agreement of Memorandum dated 27.02.2015 signed between R.Subramani and the 2nd defendant were not allowed to be marked by the plaintiff as the originals of the documents were not produced by the 1st and 2nd defendants.
21. The plaintiffs have objected to marking of the Agreement dated 29.12.2011 and the Agreement dated 11.02.2015 and 27.05.2015 on the ground that they are not a primary evidence of these documents and therefore photocopies cannot be marked as Exhibits.
22. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, the 2nd defendant had stated that the film “Boss (E) Baskaran” was directed by Mr.M.Rajesh with Mr.Yuvan Shankar Raja as its Music Director and the said movie was produced by Mr.Balasubramani of the M/s.Vasan Visual Venture, the 4th defendant.
23. It is submitted that by virtue of the Agreement dated 29.12.2011 signed between the 4th defendant M/s.Vasan Visual Venture ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu, the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani, the fourth defendant M/s.Vasan Visual Venture granted exclusive rights and assignment to the said M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu.
24. In paragraph 5 of the written statement of the second defenant, relevant clause from the said Agreement dated 29.12.2011 between the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu was reproduced. It reads as below:-
“Assignor hereby grant exclusive convey, transfer and assign in favour of Assignee the rights to capture, transfer in a medium reassign, sub-license, lend for at a considerations the CD, VCD, DVD, VHS Rights, Internet rights, internet connected devices, mobile, phone rights, mobile phone connected devices, ringtone rights, cable TV rights, pay channel, pay per view, Air borne, Blu-Ray, IPTV rights, CRBT-VRBT rights and Telephonic rights, MOD, VOD, SVOD, under sea air Borne, Web technologies distributor, exploitation and transferable connected devices and all other related rights grant Entire world Exclusive rights including India.
2. The picture period of period perpetual period (99) ninety nine years the date of this agreement/picture ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 and sound including grant exclusive rights to Mr P. Babu the Assignee.
25. In the written statement, the second defendant has further stated that pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement dated 29.12.2011 between the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu, M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu. Agreement of Memorandum dated 11.02.2015 was signed between M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and R.Subramani and thus, the rights in the film were transferred to R.Subramani.
26. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the 2nd defendant has further stated that the said R.Subramani who acquired the rights over the film “Boss (E) Baskaran” for a period of 99 years, assigned the rights to the second defendant under Agreement of Memorandum dated 27.02.2015 and thus Ex.D3 Agreement was signed between the defendants.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
27. Relevant clause from the Ex.D11 Agreement of Memorandum dated 27.02.2015 have been extracted which reads as under:-
“I. The assignors hereby grant exclusive convey transfer and assign in favour of assignee the rights to capture, the transfer, in medium re-assign, sub license, lend for at a consideration, the internet rights, internet connected devices, mobile phone, right mobile phone connected devices, ring tone rights, cable TV rights, pay channel pay per view, air borne, blue ray IPTV rights, CRBT VRBT rights and telephonic rights MOD, VOD, SVOD Sea borne web technology distributor exploitation and transferable connected devices and all other related rights grant entire world, exclusive rights including India.
2. The picture period of period perpetual period (99) ninety nine years the date of this agreement/picture and sound including Beta/DV cam. This internet mobile phone rights private commitment grant exclusive Rights Mr. R. Subramani.....
6. Rights and period internet rights, internet connected devices, mobile phone rights, mobile phone connected devices, ring tone rights IPTV rights. Telephone rights, cable TV rights, pay channel, pay per view. Air borne Right Blu Ray MOD,VOD, SVOD, CRBT, VRBT, Web technology distributor. Exploitation and transferable connected device and all other related rights grant entire world exclusive rights period perpetual period (99) ninety nine years from the date of this agreement".
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
28. It is submitted that it is on the strength of these Agreements dated 29.12.2011 and 11.02.2015 and Ex.D11 Agreement of Memorandum dated 27.02.2015 between R.Subramani and the 2nd plaintiff eventually Ex.D3 Service Agreement dated 04.04.2018 was signed between 2nd defendant and 1st defendant. The second defendant thus denied the liability.
29. This Court had framed the following issues on 04.10.2021:-
i. Whether the first plaintiff is the holder of the exclusive copyrights and broadcast rights over the movie "BOSS (E) BASKARAN"?
ii. Whether the first plaintiff has permitted the second plaintiff to telecast the movie "BOSS (E) BASKARAN" for consideration of sharing the revenue in the ratio of 50:50?
iii. Whether the first defendant by broadcasting the movie "BOSS (E) BASKARAN" in any manner in infringed the plaintiffs' copyrights over the said film?
iv. Whether the second defendant has any right to assign the broadcasting right over the movie "BOSS (E) BASKARAN" to the first defendant under agreement dated 04.04.2018?
v. Whether the agreement dated 04.04.2018 entered between the first and second defendants binds on ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 the plaintiffs?
vi. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages as prayed?
vii.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly broadcasting, reproducing, publishing telecasting, adapting or creating any derivative works of the film "BOSS (E) BASKARAN" or any part of the films?
viii.Whether the defendants are liable to surrender all CDs, DVDs, Blu Ray Discs, hard drives and any other electronic storage media containing the movie "BOSS (E) BASKARAN" or any part thereof?
ix. What other relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to?
30. Pursuant to order dated 23.11.2021, this Court had framed following additional issue on 23.11.2021:-
“In the event this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion of infringement, whether the 2nd Defendant is liable and has to indemnify the 1st Defendant?”
31. The 1st defendant had also filed A.No.4001 of 2021 under Order VIII A, Rule 8 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for a direction that the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the 1st and 2nd defendants, a cross decree be granted in favour of the 1st defendant by directing the 2nd defendant to indemnify the 1st defendant by invoking the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 provisions of order VIII A Rule 8 of CPC and to pass further orders.
32. The said application was allowed by the Court with the following observations:-
“9. It is clear from the above provision that a co- defendant will be entitled to seek for contribution from or indemnity against any other defendant in the suit. This procedure was brought in to curtail multiplicity of the proceedings and not to drive the defendant to institute one more case against the co- defendant. The legislature thought that the dispute inter se the defendants can also be considered by the same Court. It is also made clear in this provision that the dispute as among the defendants will not in any way cause prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs against the claim made by them against any defendant in the suit. In other words, this inter se dispute between the 1st and 2nd defendants will not have any impact on the rights claimed by the plaintiff and the relief sought for in the present suit.
10. The notice was served on the 2nd defendant before this application was filed. The 2nd defendant who was appearing through counsel took change of vakalat and thereafter, nothing is heard from the 2nd defendant. Sufficient opportunity has also been given and the 2nd defendant has not availed the opportunity. Taking into consideration, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the specific taken by the applicant/1st defendant in the written statement, this Court is inclined to allow this application.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019
11. In view of the above discussion, this application is allowed as prayed for.”
33. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr.G.Rajendran, Vice President / Authorised Signatory of the 2nd plaintiff and the Authorised Signatory of the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1. Mr.G.Rajendran had filed a proof affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs.
34. On behalf of the plaintiffs Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked as follows:-
Ex. Date Description P1 28.12.2018 Board Resolution passed by the first plaintiff P2 28.12.2018 Board Resolution passed by the second plaintiff P3 09.08.2010 Assignment Agreement between the plaintiff and third defendant P4 03.03.2011 Agreement between the first and second plaintiffs P5 24.10.2018 Email sent on behalf of the plaintiff by the Advocate of the plaintiff 27.10.2021 Certificate filed under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act of Ex.P5 P6 25.10.2018 Email received from the first defendant staff 27.10.2021 Certificate filed under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act of Ex.P6 P7 03.11.2018 Legal Notice issued by the Plaintiff’s Counsel P8 04.11.2018 Reply notice received by the Plaintiff’s Counsel P9 04.11.2018 Statement showing the revenue generated by the plaintiff by broadcasting the movie ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 P10 29.06.2022 Statement showing the revenue by broadcasting the movie “Varuthapadatha Vallibar Sangam”
35. On behalf of the 1st defendant, Ms.Vinita Sinha, the Divisional Manager-Legal was examined as DW1. Through DW1, the 1st defendant has filed proof affidavit. The following documents were marked as Exhibits through DW1:-
Ex. Date Description D1 17.08.2022 Board Resolution passed by the first defendant D2 17.08.2022 Authorization for authentication of documents on behalf of the company D3 04.04.2018 Service Agreement between the first and second defendants D4 20.11.2018 Letter sent by the first defendant to second defendant D5 20.11.2018 Email sent by the first defendant to the second defendant 22.08.2022 Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of Ex.D5 and D8 D6 22.03.2019 Ex.D6 – Addendum to the service agreement between the first and second defendants D7 14.11.2019 Letter sent by the first defendant to the second defendant D8 14.11.2019 Email sent by the first defendant to the second defendant D9 22.11.2019 Certified Statement of the Number of Subscribers and revenue earned on 18.10.2018
36. On behalf of the 2nd defendant, Mr.P.Andanda Rao, the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 Authorized Signatory of the 2nd defendant was examined as DW2. Through DW2, the 2nd defendant has filed proof affidavit. The following documents were marked as Exhibits through DW2:-
Ex. Date Description
D10 17.03.2020 Board Resolution of Peppermint
D11 27.02.2015 Agreement of Memorandum
37. I have considered the plaints filed by the plaintiffs, written statements filed by the contesting defendants namely the 1st and the 2nd defendants. I have perused the proof affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st and the 2nd defendants and the documents marked as Exhibits on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st and the 2nd defendants.
38. Although both suits were argued simultaneously and some of the Exhibits are common to both the suits and the dispute and the relief sought for is against the same defendants i.e., the 1st and 2nd defendants in both the suits, separate judgement are being pronounced.
39. I have extracted relevant clauses from the Agreement dated 29.12.2011 between the 4th defendant M/s.Vasans Visual Ventures ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and the Agreement of Memorandum dated 11.02.2015 between M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and Mr.RSubramani from the Written Statement of the second defendant, as these documents were not allowed to be marked as an Exhibit before this Court in view of the strong objections of the plaintiffs for marking these documents as Exhibits as originals were not produced.
40. It is further submitted that despite the movie not being broadcasted by the 1st defendant after issuance of Ex.P5 E-mail dated 24.10.2018, the 2nd plaintiff has filed the present suit. It is therefore submitted by the plaintiffs that the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
41. A separate Judgment in the Suit in C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.603 of 2019 was pronounced today. By the said Judgment, the Suit in C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.603 of 2019 was dismissed. This suit is also liable to be dismissed. The reasoning for dismissing the Suit in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.603 of 2019, will apply mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the case in the present suit in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.605 of 2019.
42. Suffice to state neither the plaintiffs has produced a copy of an agreement between the 1st plaintiff and the 4th defendant nor the plaintiffs have allowed to marking of the documents referred to as a link document viz., Agreement dated 29.12.2011 which is said to have been signed between the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and the Agreement dated 11.02.2015 signed between the said M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu with R.Subramani.
43. The plaintiffs have also not produced Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) of the Tamil Feature Film “Boss (E) Baskaran”. It would show who is a producer of the film who assigned the rights to the 1st plaintiff who has assigned the rights in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Albeit, a copyright holder has not been produced by the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 plaintiffs.
44. The defendants have also not taken steps to summon R.Subramani who is said to have executed Ex.D11 Memorandum of Agreement dated 27.02.2015 with the second plaintiff or signatory to Agreement dated 29.12.2011 which is said to have been signed between the 4th defendant represented by its proprietor Mr.Balasubramani and M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu and the Agreement dated 11.02.2015 signed between the said M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu with R.Subramani.
45. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have produced clear documents to establish their independent rights flowing from the flowing from the original copyright holder. It is quite possible the original copyright holder may have signed multiple agreements to convey the rights in favour of the 1st plaintiff as also in favour of ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 M/s.S.V.Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr.P.Babu.
46. Unless these witnesses were summoned and produced before the Court for examination, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants can be said to have established their case one way or the other.
47. I have already dealt with the inadequacy of the evidence by the both plaintiffs and defendants in my Judgment in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.603 pf 2019 by a separate Judgment. Same reason will apply mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the case in the present suit in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.605 of 2019. Therefore, I am the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief.
48. That apart, plaintiffs have made an exaggerated claim for a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only) towards damages together with interest at 12% from the date of plaint till the date of realisation, without any proof. The plaintiffs have not established their ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.23 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 damages suffered. Therefore, this Civil Suit is liable to be dismissed.
49. I leave it open for the plaintiffs as also the defendants to establish their rights for the subject film in appropriate proceedings by producing signatories to the Agreement and documents to establish their rights.
50. In view of the above, all the issues are answered against the plaintiffs, suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Suit (Comm.Div.) is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
29.04.2024 (2/2) Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No rgm/jen ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.24 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.25 of 26 C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 C.SARAVANAN, J.
rgm/jen Pre-delivery Judgment in C.S.(Comm Div).No.605 of 2019 29.04.2024 (2/2) ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.26 of 26