Delhi District Court
M/S Hans Picture, Through Its ... vs Mr. Arvind Dubey, S/O Late Mahendra ... on 21 July, 2025
~1~
In the court of Sh. Umed Singh Grewal, District Judge-
Commercial Court-02, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) 400/2022
M/S Hans Picture,
Through Its Proprietor
Shri Hans Raj Railhan ..... Plaintiff
Vs.
MR. Arvind Dubey & Ors ......Defendants
ORDER
1. This order shall decide an application of Shree Durga Multi-Trade Pvt. Ltd. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for impleading it as defendant.
2. Before embarking upon the application, let's go through the pleadings.
The plaintiff is in the business of production of cinematographs, films and also purchases rights of other films from their copyright owners/assignees against valid consideration. The defendant no.3 approached him in October 2016 representing that he was purchaser as well as negative right holder of Bhojpuri film "Sarkar Raj" and in that capacity he agreed to assign the audio, video, digital and satellite right and future copyright which may be invented in future, to him vide CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 1 to 8 Digitally signed UMED by UMED SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 16:35:42 +0530 ~2~ assignment agreement dated 25.10.2016 against consideration. At that time, the defendant no.2 had represented that the production of the film was initially started by defendant no.2 but it was completed by him/defendant no.3 and that he had already paid Rs.1,30,000/- to the previous part producer and his team and thereafter the film was completed by him/defendant no.3 and it was he who had released the film in various theaters. To his utter surprise, the defendant nos.1 & 2 issued him a legal notice in May 2022 claiming copyright of the film but as per the assignment agreement, all the rights in that film have already been assigned to him by defendant no.2 and so, he be declared as owner of those rights and defendant nos.1 & 2 be permanently restrained from claiming any right in the film and decree of rendition of accounts be also passed.
The defendant no.2 came out with the case that he is the original producer of the film "Sarjkar Raj". Defendant no.2, a proprietary concern of Shri Arvind Dubey was inducted by him as a partner subject to monetary investment of Rs.20,00,000/-, vide unregistered partnership agreement dated 05.06.2015 and thereafter defendant nos.1 & 2 started production of the film whose budget was overshooting due to which they sold all electronic digital and satellite right of the film to the applicant vide agreement dated 20.02.2016 and production of the film was completed in June 2016. For post production work, they wanted more funds and hence they approached defendant no.3 with CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 2 to 8 Digitally signed UMED bySINGH UMED SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 16:35:59 +0530 ~3~ whom detailed discussion and negotiation took place about the existing agreement between defendant no.2 and applicant. Vide "outright agreement" dated 30.07.2016, the defendant no.2 assigned the remaining rights in favour of defendant no.3, for recovery of their investment. The defendant no.3 had agreed to provide funds of Rs.20 lakhs to defendant nos.1 & 2, Rs.20 lakhs to applicant and Rs.10 lakhs to lead actor Shri Pawan Singh but he did not pay any money to defendant nos.1 & 2. It was defendant no.2 who managed to complete the film and censor certificate was also obtained by him in his name and was provided to defendant no.3. Due to existence of outright agreement and censor agreement, the defendant no.3 released the film throughout India and a revenue of Rs.14 crore was generated for which no account was every furnished either to him or defendant no.1. despite several follow ups. He claimed that he was completely unaware of the plaintiff and any of his agreement/transaction with defendant no.3.
It is next mentioned that all rights of said film had already been sold by him to applicant and defendant no.3 was well aware of that hard fact and hence, any transaction between defendant no.3 and plaintiff regarding those very rights is void. M/s Shree Durga Multi-Media Pvt. Ltd is a necessary party to the suit who has deliberately not been impleaded for the reason best known to the plaintiff though the applicant was made party by plaintiff when complaint was filed in P.S Daryagarnj.
CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 3 to 8 Digitally signed UMED by UMED SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 16:36:11 +0530 ~4~ It is next mentioned that defendant no.3 had rights of that film till recovery of his investment as per Clause 6 of agreement dated 30.7.2016, if he made payment under that agreement. But he never paid a single penny to defendant no.1 and/or defendant no.2 or to third entity. The plaintiff is one of three directors of M/s Lockdhun Telemedia Pvt. Ltd., Wave music against whom the applicant had filed several F.I.Rs and civil suits. The said entity illegally purchased film in question from plaintiff by forging the agreements. In fact, the rightful owner of all existing rights is M/s Shree Durga Multi-Media Pvt. Ltd. and not defendant no.3 or plaintiff and hence the said entity is a necessary party.
3. Ld. counsel for applicant argued that his client is a private limited company registered at Machchli Sahar, Jaunpur, U.P and is in production, distribution of copyrights of movies, motion pictures, audio albums and audio-visual albums of Bhojpuri films/movies for last several years. It entered into agreement with defendant no.2 on 20.02.2016 against lawful consideration vide which defendant no.2 assigned all electronic media rights and audio/video, entire world all formats rights/satellite rights excluding theatrical rights in Bhojpuri Sarakar Raj. Thereafter the production of the movie was completed by defendant no.2 and censor certificate was also issued in his name. The applicant was surprised to know in 2018 that the movie was being CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 4 to 8 Digitally signed UMED by UMED SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.07.21 16:36:23 +0530 ~5~ broadcast by plaintiff on YouTube Channel Waive Music despite the fact that due to assignment of such rights, the applicant was the owner of the rights and hence he made a "copyright strike" on plaintiff's channel consequent to which the channel was blocked. After blocking of the channel, the plaintiff repeatedly approached his client on phone as well as personally to settle the controversy amicably as blocking of channel on YouTube had caused a lot of financial loss to the plaintiff. The applicant removied the copyright strike due to intervention of common business friends and plaintiff's assurance of adequate compensation. But the plaintiff did not mend his ways as he again started telecasting the said movie in 2020 on B4U Bhojpuri Channel compelling the applicant to lodge F.I.R 042/2020, U/s 419, 420, 120-B of I.P.C read with Section 3 of Copyright Act at P.S Sujan Ganj, Jaunpur, U.P. and also instituted a civil suit there and both proceedings are still pending. As a counter-blast, the plaintiff lodged a false complaint against applicant in P.S Daryaganj in 2022 during the course of enquiry of which the defendant no.2 apprised enquiry office that defendant no.3 never paid him consideration for sale of copyright in "Sarkar Raj" movie. He had further told that it was only applicant who was the exclusive and legitimate owner of all satellite and digital rights in that movie. But the applicant continued his diatribe against the applicant and instituted the present suit on 16.07.2022 with oblique motive without CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 5 to 8 UMED Digitally signed by UMED SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 16:36:33 +0530 ~6~ impleading it. The applicant came to know only on 28.09.2024 about the suit.
Counsel next argued that though the written statement of defendant no.2 was taken off the record vide order dated 06.02.2023 but the same can be taken into account to know whether the applicant is a necessary party or not. It has been specifically pleaded by defendant no.2 that applicant is a necessary party because he had assigned the satellite rights in that movie to applicant vide agreement dated 20.02.2016. He submitted that the applicant is a necessary party on the strength of the agreement and hence it be impleaded as a defendant.
4. Ld. counsel for plaintiff replied that F.I.R was definitely registered against plaintiff at the instance of the applicant but the same has already been quashed. He submitted that he is not aware of pendency of any civil suit between the parties at Jaunpur, U.P. Assignment of copyrights can be done only by the producer in the case of cinematograph film. In the case in hand, the producer of movie "Sarkar Raj" is defendant no.3 and he assigned the copyrights in favour of the plaintiff.
On the other hand the copyrights of the film were assigned to applicant by defendant no.2 who is not a producer and hence is not a competent person to assign those rights and due to that reason, the applicant is neither a proper nor necessary party.
CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 6 to 8 UMED Digitally signed by UMED SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 16:36:44 +0530 ~7~
5. Outright agreement Ex.PW1/P4 dated 30.07.2016 is between defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 vide which the rights of the movie were assigned in favour of defendant no.3 with some conditions - one of the condition was that defendant no.3 would refund a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to M/s Maa Kela Devi Films on or before release of the film. The second was that Rs.10 lakhs shall be paid by assignee to the lead actor Shri Pawan Singh of the film. It is further mentioned that defendant no.2 shall be treated as exclusive copyright holder of the film till re- coupment of their investment and thereafter the negative right shall revert to defendant no.3. Clause 11 is to the effect that defendant no.3 shall have an option to deposit the agreed sum of Rs.20 lakhs in the account of M/s Maa Kela Devi Films and thereafter no NOC shall be needed from M/s Maa Kela Devi Films as deposit of the amount in the account of that entity shall be treated as NOC.
After above agreement, the defendant no.2 granted NOC Ex.PW1/P3 in favour of defendant no.3 on 22.08.2016.
Thereafter the defendant no.3 assigned copyrights of the movie to plaintiff vide agreement Ex.PW1/P6 on 25.10.2016.
The defendant no.2 had assigned copyrights in that movie in favour of applicant vide agreement dated 20.02.2016. So, assignment of copyrights in favour of plaintiff was prior in time CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors PageNo. 7 to 8 Digitally signed UMED bySINGH UMED SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 16:36:55 +0530 ~8~ in favour of applicant. But that assignment was by defendant no.2.
6. It is quite clearly mentioned in Section 17 of Copyright Act, 1957 that first owner of copyright shall be the author of the work. As per Section 2(d)(v) the author is producer in relation to a cinematograph film. As per Section 18 of the said Act, it is the owner of the copyright who can assign copyright to any person either wholly or partially. So, it is the author or producer who can assign such right. The plaintiff has placed on record censorship certificate Ex.PW1/2 issued by Central Board of Films Certification in which it is clearly mentioned that defendant no.3 is the producer. So, defendant no.3 being the producer, is owner of the copyright and it is only he who can assign those rights to anyone. There is nothing on file to suggest that defendant no.2 is the author and due to that reason, he was not competent to assign rights in favour of the applicant. So, the applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party. Hence, the application is dismissed.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open UMED bySINGH
UMED
court on 21.07.2025
SINGH Date: 2025.07.21
16:37:06 +0530
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
District Judge- Commercial Court-02
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
CS (COMM) No.400/22 Hans Picture through its proprietor Mr. Hans Raj
Railhan Vs M/s Dubey Films & Ors
PageNo. 8 to 8