Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.O.K.Films vs M/S.B.V.Combines on 12 July, 2019

Author: Krishnan Ramasamy

Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                   1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                         Dated : 12.07.2019

                                                Coram

                          The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                        C.S.No.955 of 2007
                                      and O.A.No.1205 of 2007

                 M/s.O.K.Films,
                 Rep. by its Sole Proprietor,
                 Mr.R.V.Mani,
                 No.829, Mount Road,
                 Airlines Building,
                 Chennai – 600 002.
                                                                   ...Plaintiff
                                                Versus
                 1.M/s.B.V.Combines,
                   Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder,
                   Mr.S.A.Chandrasekaran,
                   No.64, Kaveri Street,
                   Saligramam,
                   Chennai – 600 093.

                 2.M/s.Mani Raja Pictures,
                   Rep. by its Proprietor,
                   K.Subramanian,
                   No.12, Narasingapuram Street,
                   Chennai – 600 002.

                 3.M/s.Gemini Colour Laboratory,
                   No.2, Vembuliamman Koil Street,
                   Virugambakkam,
                   Chennai – 600 092.

                 4.M/s.Santosh Video Vision,
                   No.3, 4th Lane, Bhavani Mansion,
                   Nungabakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
                                                                ...Defendants
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                          2


                 (Amendment carried out as per Order dated 12.08.2010 in
                 Application Nos.927 & 928 of 2008 by impleading the fourth
                 defendant)
                          This suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
                 Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C & r/w. Sections 55 & 62 of the
                 Indian Copies Right, 1957 for the following reliefs:
                          (a) For a declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute
                 world negative right and copyright owner of the Tamil Talkie picture
                 “CHENDURA PANDI” starring Vijayakanth, Vijay, Gauthami including
                 the world satellite right as contemplated under the agreement dated
                 03.07.2003;
                          (b) For a permanent injunction restraining the 1st & 2nd
                 defendants from in any manner infringing with the absolute world
                 negative right and copyright including the world satellite right of the
                 Tamil Talkie picture “CHENDURA PANDI” starring Vijayakanth, Vijay,
                 Gauthami owned by the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement
                 dated 03.07.2003 consequently, restraining the third defendant
                 form       in    any     manner       releasing   or   delivering   the   U-
                 Matic/Beta/cassettes/prints for the purpose of telecasting the above
                 said film “CHENDURA PANDI” in the satellite media to the 1 st & 2nd
                 defendants or any third parties claiming under them without the
                 knowledge of the plaintiff; and
                          (c) For the cost of the suit.


                                 For Plaintiff     :      Mr.P.Neethi Kumar
                                                          for M/s.Waraon & Sai Rams



http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                    3




                                             JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that he is not pressing the suit since the proprietor who represented the plaintiff Firm has passed away. He therefore prayed for the dismissal of the suit and has also made an endorsement to that effect.

2. In view of the submission coupled with an endorsement made by the plaintiff's counsel, this Civil Suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. Consequently, connected Application is closed.

12.07.2019 mrr Index : Yes/No http://www.judis.nic.in 4 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., mrr C.S.No.955 of 2007 12.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 5 http://www.judis.nic.in