Madras High Court
M/S.Sun Tv Network Limited vs Iquest Enterprises Private Limited on 16 October, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.S. No. 117 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :16.10.2019
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S. No. 117 of 2003
M/s.Sun TV Network Limited,
represented by its Chief Manager,
Mr. S. Giridhar, 367/369, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Iquest Enterprises Private Limited,
1-1-151/1, Sairam Towers,
Alexander Road, Secunderabad – 500 003,
Telengana, India.
(Amended as per Order dated 10.02.2017
passed in Appn. No. 882 of 2017)
2. G. Sambasiva Rao
3. K. Kutumba Rao ...Defendants
This Civil Suit is filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957 prayed (i) declaring that the Plaintiff alone is
entitled to the copyright in respect of the broadcast of the picture
“BHALE DONGALU” (Telugu) through Satellite Television;
(ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants of
their agents or servants or anyone claiming under or through them
and/or authorized by them from in any manner infringing the copy
right already vested with the Plaintiff in respect of the broadcast
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S. No. 117 of 2003
through Satellite Television relating to the picture “BHALE
DONGALU” (Telugu) either by seeking to broadcasting the entire
picture or scenes or songs or otherwise in the First Defendant
channel or in any other channel'
(iii) directing the First Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for infringment of the exclusive
copyright vested in the Plaintiff.
(iv) directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the costs
of this suit;
For Plaintiff : Mr. Y. Anil Kumar
For Defendants : Mr. C. Ramesh for D1
JUDGMENT
The suit has been filed for the following reliefs:
(i) declaring that the Plaintiff alone is entitled to the copyright in respect of the broadcast of the picture “BHALE DONGALU” (Telugu) through Satellite Television;
(ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants of their agents or servants or anyone claiming under or through them and/or authorized by them from in any manner infringing the copy right already vested with the Plaintiff in respect of the broadcast through Satellite Television relating to the picture “BHALE 2/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003 DONGALU” (Telugu) either by seeking to broadcasting the entire picture or scenes or songs or otherwise in the First Defendant channel or in any other channel'
(iii) directing the First Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for infringement of the exclusive copyright vested in the Plaintiff.
(iv) directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this suit;
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, formerly known as Media Communication Services, is carrying on business as a World Satellite Television, broadcasting its television channel in Telugu in India and other countries. In the course of business, the plaintiff acquired the exclusive copyright of Satellite Television Broadcast in respect of the picture “BHALE DONGALU” (Telugu) produced by the second defendant. The second defendant by an agreement dated 18.02.1995 assigned the Satellite Television 3/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003 rights, Doordarshan rights, Video rights, etc., of the picture “BHALE DONGALU” along with other pictures to one K.Kutumba Rao for a perpetual period. The said K.Kutumba Roa, by an agreement dated 28.02.1995, assigned the Satellite Television, Cable, Doordarshan rights, Video rights, etc., of the picture “BHALE DONGALU” (Telugu) along with another picture to the plaintiff for a perpetual period.
3. The first defendant is a new entrant into the satellite television business and has been broadcasting its programs in Telugu through its satellite channel 'Maa Television'. On 15.12.2002, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised to see an announcement in the first defendant's channel that the film 'BHALE DONGALU' is scheduled to be telecasted in the first defendant's channel at 1 p.m on 15.12.2002. Immediately, the plaintiff called upon the first defendant over phone and informed not to infringe the copyrights of the plaintiff and not to broadcast the film in their channel. However, the first defendant went ahead and telecasted the picture in their channel on 15.12.2002. 4/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003
4. On 17.12.2002, the plaintiff sent a letter to the first defendant demanding deposit of the infringing copies of the film. There was no reply from the first defendant. The plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of the copyrights and they are alone entitled to broadcast the picture 'BHALE DONGALU' (Telugu) in Satellite Television. Hence the suit has been filed.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant that the suit picture was produced by the second defendant. By agreement dated 18.02.1998, the second defendant assigned the sole and exclusive copyright to broadcast two films, including the suit picture, in favour of G.R.M.Choudhary. The said G.R.M.Choudhary by an agreement dated 04.04.2000 assigned the World Satellite TV rights of the suit picture in favour of V.Giridhar, for a perpetual period, who, in turn, by an agreement dated 21.08.2002, assigned the said rights to H.V.Chalapathy Raju. Further, the said H.V.Chalapathy Raju, by an agreement dated 04.09.2002 assigned the Satellite and Cable TV rights in favour of the first defendant for valuable consideration. Hence, it is the case 5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003 of the first defendant that he is the perpetual owner and based on the above pleadings, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Since all the issues are interconnected, this Court proposed to decide all the issues together.
7. On the side of the plaintiff Mr.M.Jyothi Basu, Legal Manager of the plaintiff Company was examined as P.W.1 and following documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6.
Exhibit Date Description of documents
P-1 14.11.2011 The authorised resolution dated 14.11.2001
authorising the plaintiff to depose on behalf of the plaintiff company P-2 18.02.1995 The xerox copy of agreement. P-3 18.02.1995 The xerox copy of lab letter given by the second defendant to the third defendant.
P-4 28.021995 The original agreement between the plaintiff and the third defendant.
P-5 - The photocopy of the lab letter given by the third defendant to the plaintiff.
P-6 - The Office copy of the letter written by the plaintiff to the first defendant.
6/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003
8. On the side of the defendants, Srinu Jala, Company Secretary of the first defendant Company was examined as D.W.1 and the following documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D4.
Exhibit Date Description of documents
D-1 04.09.2002 The photocopy of agreement entered into between
H.V.Chalapathi Raju and the first defendant. D-2 10.02.1999 The attested photocopy of agreement between the second defendant and G.R.M.Choudhary.
D-3 04.04.2000 The attested photocopy of the agreement between the G.R.M.Choudhary and B.Giridhar.
D-4 21.08.2002 The attested photocopy of the agreement between B.Giridhar and H.V.Chalapathi Raju.
9. It is the main contention of the plaintiff that they acquired entire right, including the Satellite Television, Cable, Doordarshan rights, Video rights, etc., of the picture “BHALE DONGALU” from third defendant vide agreement dated 28.02.1995. In order to substantiate his claim six documents were marked. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of agreement dated 18.02.1995. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of lab letter dated 18.02.1995 given by the second defendant to the third defendant and Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the lab letter given by the third defendant to the plaintiff. 7/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003
10. The plaintiff has not explained or made any foundation for filing xerox copy as seconday evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the original documents were lost. Unless and until reasons are assigned for non production of original documents as evidence, reliance on the xerox copy cannot be placed for any purpose of evidence. Therefore, Exs.P2, P3 and P5 cannot be received in evidence for any purpose. Now what remains is Ex.P4, original agreement dated 28.02.1995 entered into between the plaintiff and the third defendant. On perusal of the agreement, it is apparent that the third defendant entered into an agreement with Media Communication Services assigning rights on the subject claim. It is to be noted that except the signature of the third defendant as assignor, the alleged assignee, namely Media Communication Services has not even signed the document. Even the evidence of P.W.1 does not disclose the reason to show Media Communication Services as the plaintiff and how the Media Communication Service changed the name to the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence to show that Ex.P4 is connected to the 8/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003 plaintiff, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff that the above agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and third defendant. There is no evidence filed in respect of so called change of name and amalgamation of Media Communication Services. In the absence of any evidence to show that plaintiff is the party to Ex.P4, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under Section 17(b) of Copyright Act. To acquire claim in copy right written agreement is necessary. But, on perusal of documents and case on record, there is no nexus between the plaintiff and Ex.P4. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff to acquire right under Ex.P4 cannot be countenanced.
11. Ex.D1 to D3 are also xerox copies. Ex.D4 which is original of document dated 04.09.2002 is filed to show that first defendant acquired its right. Exs.D1 and D3 also cannot be relied upon in the absence of any explanation for non-furnishing of original of the said documents.
9/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003
12. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, suit is dismissed. No costs.
16.10.2019 Index : Yes/No rst 10/11 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S. No. 117 of 2003 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., rst C.S. No. 117 of 2003 16.10.2019 11/11 http://www.judis.nic.in