Delhi District Court
M/S. Super Cassettes Industries ... vs M/S. Sri Ganesh Video on 30 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL: ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE (C) 10: DELHI.
TM No. 32/2010
and
TM No. 31/2010(C/C)
M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Limited,
E2/16, White House, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj,
New Delhi - 110 002 ...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. Sri Ganesh Video,
No. 121, N.K.K. Complex,
S. P. Road, Bangalore - 560 002
2. Mr. Deepak Roy, Proprietors
M/s. Sri Ganesh Video,
No. 121, N.K.K. Complex,
S. P. Road, Bangalore - 560 002
...Defendants/Counter Claimants
Plaint presented on 16.04.07
Counter Claim presented on 03.08.07
J U D G M E N T
1. By this common order suit filed by the plaintiff and the counterclaim filed by the defendants, which has been separately registered as a suit shall be disposed off as the two have been entertained and tried as consolidated suits.
TM No. 32/2010 Page No.1 of 19
2. This suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants from infringing the copyright of plaintiff, rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up has been filed by the plaintiff, a registered company, through Sh. Davender Kumar Kakkar, Deputy General Manager, stating that it has been carrying on business interalia of manufacturing and marketing, Sound Recordings, VCDs and DVDs of the films and audio visual songs, VCD Players, Music Systems and Television Sets etc. under its well known trade mark "TSeries". Plaintiff publishes its VCDs and DVDs of Cinematograph Films/Video Films either as producer itself or on acquiring assignments of copyright from the owners thereof. Defendant no. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Video of Films and defendant no. 2 is its proprietor. During the course of its business, plaintiff interalia had acquired video copyrights of a number of films including the following vide assignment deed dated 08.08.2002 for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/ from copyright owner Sh. Suresh Kumar M. Jain, No. 15, Tavaresh Niwaz, Sarpetine Road, Kumar Park West, Bangalore - 560 020 for the territory of entire world for perpetual period.
SI. No. Title of Film Starring
1. Bidugade Dr. Rajkumar, Bharthi, Kalpana
2. Suprabhata Vishu Vardhan, Suhaisini, Srividhya
3. Mahsati Anasuya Dr. Rajkumar, Jayanthi, Pandaribai,Leelavathi.
4. Dashavatara Dr. Raj Kumar Uday Kumar, Leelavathi,
TM No. 32/2010 Page No.2 of 19
5. Chandrahasa Dr. Rajkumar, Leelavathi, Pandaribai.
6. Rajashekhara Dr.Rajkumar, Bharathi,UdayKumar,RamaDevi
7. Pratigne Dr. Rajkumar, Jayanthi, Pandaribai, Aswath
8. Bhale Basava Udaykumar, Rajesh, Nagayya, Rajasri
9. Kanyaratna Dr. Raj Kumar, Shavukar Janaki, Leelavathi
10. Chaitrada Raghuveer Shwetha, Lokesh
Premanjali
3. Under the said deed, the assignor transferred all Video copyrights to plaintiff for transferring, processing, recording, duplicating, copying, taping etc. on videograms in any format (known now or may be invented later) including Video Cassettes, VCDs, DVDs and for communicating the films to the public through cable. The plaintiff thus acquired sole and exclusive rights in respect of the Cinematograph Films which are subject of assignment deed dated 08.08.2002. By virtue of Section 14 (d) of the Copyright Act the making/reproducing of those films in any visual medium like VCD/DVD by any person without written license and/or consent of the plaintiff will amount to infringement of plaintiff's copyright therein.
4. Plaintiff has learnt in March, 2006 that defendants illegally, unauthorizedly and without license of plaintiff have published the aforesaid Cinematograph Films claiming to have copyright therein on Video Compact Disks without being authorized or licensed or otherwise permitted by the plaintiff. The defendants thus have infringed the TM No. 32/2010 Page No.3 of 19 copyright of plaintiff in the these Cinematograph Films. The defendants have further wrongly declared themselves to be the owner of copyright by printing a declaration in terms of Section 52 A of the Copyright Act on the infringing VCDs of the aforesaid titles. Plaintiff had sent a cease and desist notice dated 14.03.2006 to the defendant no. 1 which although was received back undelivered yet defendants stopped reproduction and sale of infringing material and had extended assurance to the plaintiff that videos of suit films will not be manufactured or sold by them. Although the plaintiff has suffered incalculable damages and it is impossible to estimate incorporeal and intangible losses which are affecting the business of plaintiff yet a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ would at least be found due to it on account of profit illegally earned by the defendants. The plaintiff seeks to restrain defendants from reproducing, selling or offering for sale, hiring or communicating to the public directly or indirectly dealing with or infringing in any other manner, the copyright in the subject Cinematograph Films. An order for delivery up/recovery of infringing VCDs, masters including inlay cards and publicity material and any other infringing material relating to those films has also been urged.
5. Vide order dated 06.07.2007, on an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, Sh. Ankur Garg, Advocate was appointed Local Commissioner for inspecting the premises of defendant no. 1 or any other premises where pirated goods are believed to be stored and seize the pirated material in respect of the suit films besides signing the account books/ledgers maintained by the TM No. 32/2010 Page No.4 of 19 defendants. The Local Commission was executed on 09.05.2007 during which the Court Commissioner seized 210 infringing VCDs of the 10 films which are subject matter of the suit, as per inventory. The seized material was given to the defendant on Supardari in compliance of Court order. Interim Order restraining defendants from reproducing, selling and dealing with in any manner in those films was also passed on 25.04.2007.
6. Defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement. They have also raised counterclaim. It is contended that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff is defective and void ab initio because sufficient documentary evidence and link agreement upto the producers of the films are not filed to prove ownership in the copyrights. The suit suffers from misjoinder of necessary parties and for not complying with the provisions of Section 61 of the Copyright Act. The vital facts have been suppressed/concealed with an attempt to mislead the Court which is enough to nonsuit the plaintiff. The assignment deed dated 08.08.2002 relied upon by the plaintiff is absolutely silent as to how and when Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain had acquired the video rights in respect of the films in issue.
7. Defendants are the valid and subsisting copyright holders in respect of the ten films. Defendant no. 2 has been carrying on business of production, distribution and sale of VCDs and DVDs of Kannad and Telgu films after acquisition of legitimate rights therein from the respective film producers and/or copyright owners, for the last 17 years as proprietor of TM No. 32/2010 Page No.5 of 19 defendant no.1. Film "Bidugade" was produced by M/s. Vynatheya Combines who had transferred their rights to M/s. Swastik Distributors represented by its proprietor Sh. G. L. Chandershekharan vide agreement dated 14.08.1998, who in turn further executed assignment deed dated 21.11.2005 in favour of defendants for ¾" U matic Cassettes, ½" VHS Cassettes, Video Discs, Digital Video and all electronic media for perpetual period. "Suprabhatha" was produced by Suryaprabha films who had assigned their rights in it in favour of M/s. Swastik Distributors on 28.11.1998 from whom defendants purchased it by the same agreement dated 21.11.2005. The defendants have been exploiting the fruits of assignment right from the date of agreement continuously without interruption.
8. Films "Mahasati Anusuya", "Dashavatara", "Chandrahasa", "Rajashekhara", "Prathigne" and "Bhale Basava"
were produced by Vikram Productions having Sh. B. S. Ranga as its sole proprietor. He had assigned all his rights in first five films in favour of M/s. V. Santhanam vide assignment deed dated 28.10.1999 and the last film vide deed dated 29.10.1999. M/s. V. Santhanam further assigned its rights to the defendants on 31.08.2005 for a perpetual period. "Kanyarathna" was produced by M/s. Saptagiri Chitra who had assigned video copyrights therein to M/s. Kush Entertainers represented by Minor Master Kush Bhopalam through his father and Guardian Sh. BV Badrinath vide agreement dated 21.08.1991. M/s. Kush Entertainers was marketing TM No. 32/2010 Page No.6 of 19 its products under trade name Manoranjan Video which concern was run by Brothers BV Badrinath and BV Ravindranath. After sometime the concern was taken over by latter with mutual consent of brothers, Sh. Ravindranath ran that business in the name of his wife Mrs. B. R. Naagrani, The defendants have taken over the title in this film from M/s. Manoranjan Video and are therefore its rightful owners. "Chitrada Premanjali" was produced by Raghuvir who vide an agreement assigned video copyrights therein to M/s. KCN Enterprises represented by its Managing Director Sh. KCN Mohan. Sh. Mohan, in turn sold it to Mr. Chandrashekhar from whom defendants have purchased them vide agreement dated 28.03.2006. It is contended that the agreement filed by the plaintiff on the other hand does not disclose the chain of agreements from the producers of the films to the plaintiff therefore the same has no legal import. It is contended that suit has been filed without any cause of action.
9. On merits, defendants have disputed the competence of Sh. D.K. Kakkar to sign, verify and file the plaint. It is also denied that he is conversant with the facts of this case. Since the plaintiff did not acquire any rights in the ten films in issue there was no question of defendants seeking written license or consent of the plaintiff for dealing in those films. It has been denied that the provisions of Copyright Act have been violated by the defendants or that plaintiff has suffered any damage on account of act/omission of defendants or are entitled to TM No. 32/2010 Page No.7 of 19 compensation/damages. While denying the receipt of legal notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff, the same has been termed farce and fraud played upon the defendants. Defendants denied having stopped reproduction and sale of the suit films. It has been urged that suit may be dismissed with heavy costs.
10. Defendants simultaneously filed the counterclaim which is registered as separate suit bearing TM No. 31/2010 in respect of the very same ten films seeking to restrain the plaintiff from manufacturing, duplicating, marketing, circulating, advertising, renting, offering for sale or by way of display for trade in any form without permission/consent and/or license from the defendants. The plaintiff, its partners, servants, agents, distributors, assigns franchisees are sought to be directed to deliver possession of all the infringing copies and ancillary materials pertaining to these cinematograph films to the defendants. Damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/ for tarnishing the reputation and goodwill of defendants by infringing their copyright and for rendering the accounts of profits made by plaintiff by manufacturing and selling these films in which defendants have actual and subsisting rights and decree of the amount so found due are also sought to be passed.
11. Common replication and written statement to the counter claim filed by the plaintiff is reiteration of the contents of plaint and rebuttal of the contents of written statement and the counterclaim. It has been denied that the defendants are true and lawful owners of video copyrights in the subject films and have the sole and exclusive rights to TM No. 32/2010 Page No.8 of 19 commercially exploit them. According to them Bidugade was produced by T. P. Venugopal under the banner Ramesh Movies of which he was the sole proprietor. The documents produced by defendants reflect that M/s. Vynatheya Combines were not the producers but the negative rights holder in the said film. It did not own copyright therein nor could have transferred it further. Similarly the agreement dated 29.11.1998 between M/s Suryaprabha Films and M/s. Swastik Distributors in respect of "Suprabhatha" cable TV rights, Satellite TV rights etc. only had been assigned. The agreement is silent about home video rights, VCDs, DVDs, Laser Disc and other video formats therefore defendants are not entitled to make videos of this film. Sh. B. S. Ranga as proprietor of M/s Vikram Productions had assigned video copyrights in "Mahasati Anusuya", "Dashavatara", "Chandrahasa", "Rajashekhara", "Prathigne" and "Bhale Basava" in favour of Mrs. Sobha Mahesh Dand under agreement dated 23.01.1989 and she had further assigned the video copyright in those films in favour of Sh. Suresh Kumar M. Jain on 20.03.1993. In respect of film "Kanyarathna" defendants have not filed any documents of acquisition of home video rights. It was produced by Sh. D. B. Narayan as proprietor of M/s. D. B. N. Productions and had granted video rights in favour of Sh. S. G. Raju under an agreement dated 20.03.1995. Sh. Raju executed an agreement dated 04.04.1998 in favour of M/s. Swastik Distributors granting them said rights, who in turn further assigned video rights to Mr. Suresh Kumar M. Jain. So far as "Chitrada Premanjali" is TM No. 32/2010 Page No.9 of 19 concerned it was produced by Ms. M. Sasikala as proprietor of M/s. M. C. Productions and its home video rights were granted by her to M/s. Darshan Video under an agreement dated 30.03.1992. Sh. B. V. Ramakrishna granted the said rights to Sh. Suresh Kumar M. Jain vide agreement dated 21.05.1996. As has already been stated plaintiff has acquired all rights in these films from Sh. Suresh Kumar M. Jain under assignment deed dated 08.08.2002. The VCDs produced by defendants thus have infringed the copyright of plaintiff entitling the latter to the relief claimed in the suit.
12. Vide order dated 14.08.2007 temporary injunction application of both the parties were partly allowed and application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC of the defendants was disposed off. Defendants had challenged the order by filing FAO no. 396/07 in the Hon'ble High Court. It was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.03.2010 with direction to this court to dispose off the suit within one year.
13. Following issues in the suit as well as counterclaim were framed on 16.07.2008:
1. Whether the suit has been signed and verified by a duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is bad for non complying with the provisions of section 61 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957? If so, its effect? OPD.
3. Whether Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain had any rights to assign the copy right in respect of the impugned cinematographic films to the TM No. 32/2010 Page No.10 of 19 plaintiff? If so, whether he has assigned the video copy rights of the said films to the plaintiff with a valid and subsisting assignment deed dated 08.08.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 30 Lacs. OPP.
4. If issue no. 3 is answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiff has become the exclusive owner of the copy right in the said cinematographic work relating to the said films? OPP.
5. Whether the defendants have the valid and subsisting video rights in respect of the films in question which they acquired by way of assignment deed executed by the respective producers and/or assignees of the said films and are prior in time to the assignment deed relied upon by the plaintiff? If so, whether the defendants are the true and rightful owners of the video rights of the said films? OPP.
6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff or the defendant is/are entitled to? OPP.
7. Relief.
14. In evidence plaintiff examined Sh. Davender Kakkar, Deputy General Manager as PW1 who has proved certificate of incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/1, Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of plaintiff Ex. PW1/2, Deed of assignment dated 08.08.2002 Ex. PW1/3, payment receipt Ex. PW1/4, TM No. 32/2010 Page No.11 of 19 VCDs of the ten subject Kannad Films published by plaintiff are Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/14 , VCDs of those very films published by the defendants as Ex. PW1/15 to Ex. PW1/24, legal notice Ex. PW1/25, return envelope Ex. PW1/26, postal receipt Ex. PW1/27, Caveat Petitions filed by the defendants before the City Civil Courts, Bangalore as Ex. PW1/28 and Ex. PW1/29 and also narrated the facts. Plaintiff closed its evidence on 07.01.2011.
15. Defendants examined defendant no. 2 as DW1 who has tendered assignment deeds Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/5, Ex. DW1/7, Ex. DW1/12. Other deeds of assignments etc. were sought to be proved but on objection being raised on behalf of the plaintiff, nine documents were de exhibited and it transpired that document Ex.DW1/12 mentioned in the affidavit has not even been filed. Defendants have closed their evidence on 18.02.2011.
16. I have carefully perused the written synopsis filed by the plaintiff. None has turned up on behalf of the defendants either to address oral arguments or file the written submissions. I have carefully gone through the judicial record. The issuewise findings are recorded herein: Issue no. 1.
17. There is no dispute between the parties that Sh. Devender Kakkar, PW1 is the Deputy General Manager of plaintiff. While holding such senior post, he can legitimately be taken to be the Principal Officer of plaintiff. By virtue of the provisions of order 29 Rule 1 CPC, he is TM No. 32/2010 Page No.12 of 19 competent to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of plaintiff. Reference to the ratio of United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar, IV (1996) CLT 51 (SC) may be made in this behalf. PW1 has been specifically authorized by the plaintiff, a juristic person to institute pleadings in court of law by resolution Ex. PW1/2. No question whatsoever was asked from him in cross examination to dent his testimony on these points/documents. Defendant thus is deemed to have accepted the version of witness to that extent. It is thus found that the suit has been instituted by a competent officer of plaintiff. Issue is decided in affirmative.
Issue no. 2.
18. Section 61 of Copyright Act, 1957 provides that in every civil suit regarding infringement of copyright instituted by an exclusive licensee, the owner of the copyright, unless the Court otherwise directs be made a defendant, and where such owner is made a defendant, he shall have the right to dispute the claim of exclusive licensee. In this suit plaintiff claiming to be exclusive assignee of video copyrights in the ten subject films. The first owners/proprietors of copyright that is the producers of films have not been impleaded. It has not been pointed out by suit parties that the first owners of copyright are disputing the assignments in their works/films. They have also not instituted independent suits against either of the suit parties. Their impleadment thus TM No. 32/2010 Page No.13 of 19 was mere formality and does not really affect the rights of the contesting parties. Issue is thus decided in the negative.
Issue No. 3
19. Through agreement dated 08.08.2002, Ex. PW1/3 Sh. Suresh Kumar M Jain had transferred rights in 341 Kannad films including their video copyright for the territory of entire world for perpetual period to the plaintiff. The list of films is an annexure to the main agreement. It however lacks particulars of the first copyright owners i.e. Producers of the cinematograph films and the chain of transferrees through whom Sh. Jain himself had acquired the copyrights. Both the parties have produced copies of some of the Predecessor's agreements to substantiate their claims. Those however could only be marked because the suit parties were not the executants or witnesses thereof nor they claim that such agreements were signed in their presence. The rival claims however sustain on these documents, I would rely on them for the purposes of disposal of the suit because the parties did not deny their existence.
20. Plaintiff has claim that Bidugade was produced by T.P. Venugopal. They have thus disputed the claim of defendant of M/s Vynatheya Combines being its producer but stated no further link from Sh. T.P. Venugopal to Sh. Suresh Kumar M. Jain. The chain leading to the plaintiff acquiring video copyrights in this film is, therefore, incomplete. Defendant on the other hand has produced agreement dated 14.08.1998 in respect of this film executed by Sh. B.G. Gundanna, proprietor of TM No. 32/2010 Page No.14 of 19 Vynatheya Combines, the world negative rights owners and video copyright holders in favour of M/s Swastik distributors who in turn executed agreement dated 21.11.2005, Ex. DW1/2 in favour of the defendant.
21. Regarding Suprabhatha it has been admitted by parties that it was produced by Suryaprabha films who had assigned the video copyrights therein to M/s Swastik distributors vide agreement dated 28.11.1998. The rights were further transferred by Sh. G.L. Chandershekhar, Proprietor of M/s Swastik distributors to Smt, Veena Shekar vide agreement dated 05.05.1999 as per the plaintiff. There is no document of Sh. Jain having acquired video rights in this film directly from Smt. Shekar or any other channel. Defendant, on their part proved agreement dated 21.11.2005, Ex. DW1/5 executed by M/s Swastik Distributors in their favour. The veracity of agreement in favour of Smt. Shekar and it having been acted upon remaining doubtful, the version of defendant is convincing and digestible.
22. Films Mahasati Anusuya, Dashavatara, Chandrahasa, Rajashekara, Pratigni and Bhale Basava were admittedly produced by M/s Vikram Productions who through its proprietor Sh. B.S. Ranga had conveyed rights including video copyrights in these films to Mrs. Shobha Mahesh Dand vide agreement dated 23.01.1989. She had further transferred her interest in these films to Sh. Jain vide agreement dated 20.03.1993. The chain of acquisition of rights in these films from the TM No. 32/2010 Page No.15 of 19 producers to Sh. Jain and from him to the plaintiff appears complete. The claim of defendant in pleadings, which he did not repeat in testimony, that Sh. Ranga had transferred rights in these films to M/s V. Santhanam as Mrs. Dand had failed to honour the commitment of payment of agreed amount in installments, remained unestablished. Mrs. Dand having acquired rights in these films 10 years prior to the alleged predecessor in interest of the defendants, was better equipped to deal with them. The defendants thus could not make out their entitlement to the video rights in these films.
23. About Kanyarathna, black and white, plaintiff has produced copy of agreement dated 20.03.1995 executed by Sh. D. Diwakar, Proprietor of M/s DBN Productions in favour of Sh. S.G. Raju interalia in respect of video copyrights. Sh. Raju executed agreement dated 04.04.1998 in favour of M/s. Swastik distributors who had further transferred it to Sh. Jain vide agreement dated 01.01.1999. The link of transfer documents right from the producers to the plaintiff is complete. Defendants could produce only the copy of agreement dated 21.08.1991 between M/s Sathagiri Chitra in favour of M/s Kush Entertainers. They claim to have acquired it from said partnership firm but no document has been produced. It is also strange to note that the agreement dated 21.08.1991 has been executed by father and natural guardian of minor partner Kush Bhoopalam. How could the minor, who may have been admitted to the benefits of partnership, be competent to execute agreement TM No. 32/2010 Page No.16 of 19 on behalf of the terms even through a guardian? Why the normal course of executing the agreement, if at all, through a competent partner of the said firm, who may be looking after its day to day affairs, was not adopted, is a mystery. In any case the chain leading the transfer of interest in this film to defendants is incomplete.
24. In respect of film Chaitrada Premanjali plaintiff has produced agreement dated 30.03.1992 executed by M. Sasikala Proprietor of M/s. M.C. Productions transferring world video rights in favour of M/s. Darshan Video represented by B.Mallegowda. Another unlinked agreement dated 21.05.1996 between B.V. Ramakrishna and M/s. United Video Company belonging to Sh. Jain has been produced but due to the missing links the chain is incomplete. Defendants on the other hand have produced an agreement dated 28.03.2006 executed by M/s Swastik Distributors interalia in respect of this film in their favour. No documentary evidence of transfer of video copyright in favour of M/s. K.C.N. Enterprises and M/s Swastik distributors has been produced.
25. In view of above, assignment of only seven out of the 10 films could reasonably be shown in favour of Sh. Suresh Kumar M. Jain which he has validly passed on to the plaintiff vide assignment deed dated 08.08.2002. Issue is accordingly decided.
Issue no. 4.
TM No. 32/2010 Page No.17 of 19
26. In the light of outcome of issue no. 3 plaintiff is held to be video copyright holder in the seven cinematographic films listed at items no. 3 to 9 in the table appearing herein before.
Issue no. 5.
27. As has been discussed in issue no. 3 defendants are found to have valid and subsisting video copyrights in respect of films Bidugade and Suprabhata. They are held to be rightful copyrights holders therein. Issue no. 6 and 7.
28. None of the parties could establish transfer of copyright in their favour in the film Chitrada Premanjali. Therefore, claim in its respect in the suit as well as in the counter claim is dismissed. Defendants are restrained from reproducing, selling, directly or indirectly displaying or communicating the cinematograph films Mahasati Anusuya, Dashavatara, Chandrahasa, Rajashekara, Pratigne, Bhale Basava and Kanyarathna or otherwise dealing with them or in any other manner infringing the copyright of plaintiff therein. Likewise the plaintiff is restrained from reproducing, selling, directly or indirectly displaying or communicating the cinematograph films Bidugade and Suprabhatha or otherwise dealing with them or in any other manner infringing the copyright of defendants therein.
29. The infringing material recovered by ld. Local commissioner in the above terms, be destroyed/obliterated by the defendant, to whom the TM No. 32/2010 Page No.18 of 19 same were entrusted, within one month. Superdaginama dated 09.05.2007 executed by defendant no. 2 is hereby discharged.
30. Since both the parties have failed to whisper about the volume of trade in respect of the rival films nor will the exercise of seeking rendition of accounts be short and easy. The films are old and must be marketed in select areas for nominal accounts, given their transfer value in the various agreements, the relief of rendition of accounts is deemed inappropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
31. Although damages for causing monetary loss to the trade of opposite parties as also punitive damages are generally awarded in such matters but when both parties have been found trading in the articles in which opposite party holds copyrights, only one of them cannot be blamed. The claim for grant of compensation/damages therefore, is declined. Issues are accordingly decided.
32. This order will not adversely affect or jeopardize the interest of third parties in the subject films and is rendered in the peculiar facts placed before the Court.
33. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. Decree sheets be prepared. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court On 30th April, 2011 (Sunil K. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi TM No. 32/2010 Page No.19 of 19 TM No. 32/2010 30.04.2011 Present: None for the parties.
Vide separate judgment the suit has been partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sunil K. Aggarwal)
Addl. District Judge (Central)10
Delhi: 30.04.2011
TM No. 32/2010 Page No.20 of 19
TM No. 31/2010
30.04.2011
Present: None for the parties.
Vide separate judgment the counter claim has been partly decreed in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sunil K. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi: 30.04.2011 TM No. 32/2010 Page No.21 of 19