Madras High Court
Kishore Prabhudas Hemdev vs S.D.Gunasekaran on 16 March, 2022
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.S.No.46 of 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.[Commercial Div] No.46 of 1996
Kishore Prabhudas Hemdev
Madras – 105 ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. S.D.Gunasekaran
2. Vijaya Productions Pvt., Ltd.,
Madras – 26
3. Sun T.V. Owned by Sumangali
Publications, Madras – 18
4. The Station Director,
Doordharshan Kendra, Madras – 5
5. The Director General,
Dhoordharshan
Mandi House, Copernicus Margh
New Delhi – 110 001 ...Defendants
Civil Suit filed under Section 55 & 62 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957
and under VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and under Order IV
Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules High Court, Madras (i) For declaration that
the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the negative rights of the picture,
Sumangali, 35 mm, Tamil Colour, starring Shivaji Ganesan and Others
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.46 of 1996
directed by Yoganand, for a period of 99 years, from 07.07.1994 for all
territories in all dimensions throughout the world, including all future
advance technologies except Indian Video Rights and India T.V.Rights
(ii) For Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents,
servants or any body on their behalf or representing them, from interfering
with the plaintiff's rights exploitation of the 35 MM rights in all territories and
on all other dimensions throughout the world including all future advanced
technologies except Indian Video Rights and Indian T.V.Rights in respect of
the picture Sumangali, 35 MM colour starring Shivaji Ganesan and others
and directed by Yogan and (iii) for costs of the suit;
For Plaintiff : No appearance
For Defendants : Mr.Mohammed Yosub – D3
Mr.P.L.Narayanan for D2
D4, D5 and D6 - No appearance
D1 – Dismissed for non-
prosecution by learned Master
on 19.02.1998.
JUDGMENT
On an earlier occasion, viz., 02.03.2022, the present suit was listed under the caption 'To Determine the Jurisdiction' Thereafter, the Jurisdiction was determined on the same day and learned counsel for the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.46 of 1996 plaintiff reports 'no instructions' and sought time to get instructions, hence the matter was adjourned to 10.03.2022.
2. On 10.03.2022, there was no representation on the side of the plaintiff, hence the matter was directed to be listed on 15.03.2022 under the caption 'for dismissal'. On 15.03.2022, also, there was no representation for the plaintiff, hence this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the plaintiff in the cause list and directed to list the matter on 16.03.2022 under the same caption, viz., 'for dismissal'.
3. Today, viz., 16.03.2022, though the name of the plaintiff was printed in the cause list and the name of the plaintiff was called out thrice, there is no representation for the plaintiff, hence, the present suit is dismissed as non-prosecution. No costs.
16.03.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking order ssd 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.46 of 1996 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J., ssd C.S.[Comm.Div] No.46 of 1996 16.03.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis