Bombay High Court
Saregama India Limited (Previously ... vs Mahal Pictures Private Limited on 22 September, 2011
Author: R.M.Borde
Bench: R.M.Borde
1 569.02-cra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2002
Saregama India Limited (previously known as
Gramophone Company of India Limited), a
company incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at
3rd Floor, R.P.G. Tower, J.B.Nagar, Opp.
Kohinoor Continental, Andheri-Kurla Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059. ... Petitioner.
V/s.
Mahal Pictures Private Limited,
a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act,
1956, having its address at Kamal
Amrohi Studios, Jogeshwari
Vikhroli Link Road, Andheri (East)
Mumbai 400 093. ... Respondent.
Rahul Chitnis with Mikhail Behl i/b. Thakore Jariwala
and Associates for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th August 2011.
PRONOUNCED ON: 22nd September 2011.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:46 :::
2 569.02-cra
JUDGMENT. :
Heard arguments advanced by Shri Rahul Chitnis, counsel appearing for the the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served.
2. By this revision application the petitioner is taking exception to the order passed by Judge, City Civil Court in S.C.Suit No. 3740/2000 decided on 8th January 2002. This revision application is filed by original defendant No.3 who is holder of sole and exclusive musical recording rights in respect of several films including Pakeezah those have been assigned in favour of the petitioner- company by the original producer/ copyright owner viz. respondent No.1/ original plaintiff under the agreement dated 13th February 1971. According to defendant No.3, the rights held by the company are sole and exclusive and in perpetuity. The defendant No.3 exploited ownership rights in respect of music of the film Pakeezah by making cassettes, records, VCDs etc. without there being any objection from the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff was paid royalty for all the activities conducted by defendant No.3 in consonance with the agreement entered into between them. The copyrights held by the petitioner/ original defendant No.3 are also registered with the Registrar of Copyrights under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. The defendant No.3 in exercise of rights granted in his favour further granted a limited licence in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3/ original defendant Nos.1 and 2 for exploiting two songs of the feature film Pakeezah in the feature film sought to be produced by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.1/ original plaintiff objected for grant of licence in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:46 ::: 3 569.02-cra favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by defendant No.3 for exploiting/ use of two songs of the feature film Pakeezah. According to the plaintiff, assignment of rights is not in consonance with the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and the plaintiff being the owner of the copyrights is entitled to object for the use of songs by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in another feature film. In the pending suit, an application was tendered seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants from using songs in the feature film which was granted by the trial Court on 9th April 2001. The defendant No.3 preferred appeal from order challenging the interim order passed by the trial Court. The appeal from order was admitted and was, subsequently, heard for final disposal. The matter was remitted back to the trial Court for rehearing on all the points including point of jurisdiction in terms of order passed on 10th October 2001.
3. In pursuance of the remand of the matter, the City Civil Court framed two issues as follows:
(1) Do the defendants prove that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit in terms of the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
(2) Do the defendants prove that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit in view of Cl. 17 of the agreement dtd.
13.2.1971.
4. The issues framed by the trial Court, after extending opportunity of haring to both the sides, were answered by the trial ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:46 ::: 4 569.02-cra Court in negative and it was held that the City Civil Court does have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
5. It is urged by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the trial Court has not considered the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act in its proper perspective. According to the petitioner/ original defendant No.3, it shall be kept in mind that the District Court for the purposes of city of Bombay is the High Court invested with the original jurisdiction. The City Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. It is also the contention of the petitioner/ original defendant No.3 that the issues involved in the suit are relating to observance and interpretation of the provisions of the Copyright Act and, as such, the suit is cognizable by the District Court which is a High Court for the purposes of the instant suit.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the prayers made in the suit which are reproduced as below:
(a) that it may be ordered and declared that the Defendants No.1 and 2 are not entitled to distribute, sell and Exhibit the motion picture namely "East is East" and Hindi Version "East Phir Bhi Hai East" produced by Defendant No.1 in any manner and or promoting the Digital Video Disc containing the said songs of film Pakeezah on any television Channel anywhere in the world.
(b) that it may be ordered and declared that the Defendant No.1 are not entitled to make use of the film songs of Pakeezah viz., "Inhee Logo Ne" and "Chalo dildar Chalo" in the motion picture tiled East is East and Hindi Version "East Phir Bhi Hai East" produced by the Defendant No.1 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:46 ::: 5 569.02-cra
(c) that the Defendant No.1 be ordered and directed by an order and injunction of the Honourable Court to remove the two film songs of Pakeezah namely, "inhee Logo Ne" and "Chalo dildar Chalo" produced by Defendant No.1
(d) that the Defendant 1 and 2 be permanently restrained by an order and injunction of this Honourable Court from distributing, exhibiting or selling the film "East is East" and Hindi Version "East Phir Bhi Hai East" containing the songs, viz., "Inhee Logo Ne" and "Chalo dildar Chalo"
anywhere in the world and/or Digital video Disc containing the said songs and/or exhibiting on the television channel anywhere in the world.
(e) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit the Defendants 1 and 2 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honourable Court from distributing and/or releasing, exhibiting the film titled East is East and Hindi version "East Phi Bhi Hai East" and/or selling distributing exhibiting Digital Video Disc containing the said songs, "Inhee Logo Ne" and "Chalo Dildar Chalo" and/or promoting and exhibiting the said film and or Digital Video Disc on any television Channel anywhere in the world.
(f) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (e) above
(g) that the cost of this Suit be provided for
(h) The Plaintiffs may have such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances.
On perusal of the prayers contained in the plaint, it would be clear that the plaintiff is seeking declaration that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled distribute, sell and exhibit the motion picture namely "East is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:46 ::: 6 569.02-cra East" and Hindi version "East Phir Bhi Hai East". The plaintiff is also seeking declaration and injunction in respect of two songs filmed in feature film "Pakeezah", in respect of which defendant No.3 holds copyrights or is the holder of the copyrights.
7. The agreement is executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 in respect of transfer/ user of the copyrights in respect of music of the film Pakeezah. It is recited in the agreement in paragraph No.1(a) "the word work used hereinafter has the meaning assigned to it by section 2(y)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act". It would be necessary to reproduce clauses 7 and 10 of the agreement, which read thus :
7. The client hereby agree that they assign their gramophone recording rights in all works to be recorded or re-recorded under the provisions of this Agreement to the company and hereby agree further to indemnify and keep indemnified the Company in the case of such works as aforesaid from and against all clients, claims and damages which the Company may incur by reason of the recording, issue and sale of such works.
10. The Company shall be the owner of the original plate with the meaning of the Copyright Act 1957 and any extensions or modifications thereof each title recorded or recorded under the provisions of this Agreement at the time when such place shall be made. The company shall also be entitled to the sole right of production, reproduction, sale, use and performance (including broadcasting) throughout the world by any and every means whatsoever of the records of the works performed by the artistes and musicians etc. under this Agreement. The Company shall in its absolute discretion be entitled to authorize any other ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 ::: 7 569.02-cra persons, firms or corporation in any part of the world to manufacture, sell and/or catalogue records of all or any of the titles recorded or re-recorded under the provisions of this Agreement when royalties shall become payable to the clients as mentioned in Clause 6 and 8 hereof.
8. The term "work" has been defined in section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, which reads thus:
2. Interpretation.-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) to (xx) ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
(y) "work" means any of the following works, namely:--
(i) a literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic work;
(ii) a cinematograph film;
(ii) a sound recording.
9. It would also be useful to refer to the provisions of sections 54, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which read as under:
54. Definition.-- For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "owner of copyright" shall include--
(a) an exclusive licensee;
(b) in the case of an anonymous or pseudonymous literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, the publisher of the work, until the identity of the author or, in the case of an anonymous work of joint authorship, or a work of joint authorship published under names all of which are ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 :::
8 569.02-cra pseudonyms, the identity of any of the authors, is disclosed publicly by the author and the publisher or is otherwise to the satisfaction of the Copyright Board by that author or his legal representatives.
55. Civil remedies for infringement of copyright.-- (1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, he entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right;
Provided that if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of !he infringing copies as the court may in the circumstances deem reasonable, (2) Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a name purporting to be that to the author or the publisher, as the case may be, appears on copies of the work published, or, in the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears or appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, id be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be.
(3) The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall be in the discretion of the court.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 :::9 569.02-cra
62. Jurisdiction of Court over matters arising under this Chapter.-- (1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a "district court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
10. On perusal of the agreement as well as the provisions of the Copyright Act, it is clear that the term "work" appearing in the agreement has the same meaning as assigned to the term "work" in section 2(y) of the Copyright Act which includes the sound recording. The defendant No.3 has been assigned gramophone recording rights in all works to be recorded or re-recorded under the provisions of the agreement in terms of clause 7 of the agreement. The defendant No.3- company is also entitled to the sole right of production, reproduction, sale, use and performance (including broadcasting) throughout the world by any and every means whatsoever of the records of the works performed by the artistes and musicians under the agreement. The company is also entitled to authorise any other persons, firms or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 ::: 10 569.02-cra corporation to manufacture, sell and catalogue records under the provisions of the agreement. Thus, defendant No.3 has been given exclusive rights in respect of music of the feature film Pakeezah. It is an error on the part of the trial Court to hold that defendant No.3 has not been assigned rights to use the music of the film or to assign the rights in respect of use of the music to any other persons, firms or corporation. The rights to which the defendant No.3 is entitled to under the agreement is even in respect of assignment of the rights in relation to the music of film Pakeezah to any other persons, firms or corporation to manufacture, sell and/or catalogue the records. Thus, defendant No.3 is entitled to assign the rights or to sell the music or to sell the rights to any party in relation to the music of the film Pakeezah. Defendant No.3 is the sole and exclusive holder of the rights under the agreement.
11. It is also an error on the part of the trial Court to hold that the relief claimed in the suit is not coming within the ambit of Chapter 12 of the Copyright Act. Section 55 of the Act, which is part of Chapter 12 of the Act, provides for civil remedies for infringement of the copyrights and prayers made in the suit presented by the plaintiff come within the ambit of section 55 of the Act.
12. There can be no dual opinion about proposition that Bombay High Court is the District Court for the purpose of instituting suits arising out of territory of Bombay district. A similar issue has been dealt with by Madras High Court in the case of The Daily Calendar Supplying Bureau, Sivakasi v. The United Concern, AIR 1967 Mad 381 and the view expressed by the Madras High Court has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 ::: 11 569.02-cra been affirmed by this Court in Mohan Meakin Limited, Bombay v. The Pravara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 1987 Mh.L.J. 503.
This Court (R.M.Borde, J.) had an occasion to consider the issue in respect of jurisdiction covered by section 62(2) of the Copyright Act which was fallen for consideration while dealing with writ petition bearing No.6007/2010 between Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. v.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. decided on 19th October 2010. The said judgment relates to the interpretation of provisions of the Trade Mark Act. The provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act being a pari materia with the provisions of section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were considered in paragraphs- 19 and 20 of the judgment; wherein it is observed thus:
19. The provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, are pari materia to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The provisions of Section 134(2) are quoted in paragraph No. 7 of this judgment. While interpreting provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Apex Court, in the matter of Exphar SA and another v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1682, has observed that:
The word "include" appearing in in Section 62(2) makes the jurisdiction wider than as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Referring to the object of introduction of Sub- section (2) of Section 62, given in the report of Joint Committee published in the Gazette of India dated 23.11.1956, it is observed in para 13 of the judgment, that:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 :::
12 569.02-cra It is, therefore, clear that the object and reason for the introduction of Sub-
section (2) of Section 62 was not to restrict the owner of the copyright to exercise their rights but to remove any impediment from their doing so. Section 62(2) cannot be read as limiting the jurisdiction of the District Court only to cases where the person instituting the suit or other proceeding, or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. It prescribes an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a Court over and above the 'normal' grounds as laid down in Section 20 of the Code.
20. Thus, it cannot be controverted that the jurisdiction of the Court, dealing with the matters arising out of Copyright Act, would be wider than what has been restricted in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999, are pari materia to the provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the interpretation put by the Apex Court to provisions of Section 62(2) would squarely apply to the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
13. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the prayers made in the plaint presented by respondent No.1/ original plaintiff fall within the ambit of provisions of Chapter 12 of the Copyright Act and, as such, the suit shall necessarily required to be decided by the forum prescribed under the Copyright Act.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 :::13 569.02-cra
14. So also the interpretation of various clauses contained in the agreement entered into by the plaintiff and defendant No.3 as well as on perusal of provisions of the Copyright Act, an inescapable conclusion has to be drawn that the suit presented by the plaintiff is in respect of infringement of copyrights and shall have to be dealt with by the forum prescribed under the Copyright Act. The proper court for dealing with the objection raised by the plaintiff in the plaint is District Court for Bombay District which is High Court having its original jurisdiction. The suit presented by the plaintiff before the City Civil Court at Bombay is not tenable. The trial Court has erred in recording finding on issue of jurisdiction in the negative thereby holding that the City Civil Court does have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
This revision application, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequent upon the decision arrived by this Court allowing instance revision application, the suit bearing S.C.Suit No.3740/2000 presented by the plaintiff does not deserve consideration by the City Civil Court and the plaint shall have to be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation. The City Civil Court shall pass an order directing return of the plaint to the plaintiff as contemplated by order 7 rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M.BORDE, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:45:47 :::