Bangalore District Court
Sri Ganesh Video vs M/S. Videotronics on 1 August, 2018
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P.67]
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO. 26734/2008
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff/s:- Sri Ganesh Video,
No.121, N.K.K. Complex,
S.P. Road, Bengaluru 560 002.
Represented by its Proprietor,
Sri R. Deepak Roy, aged about 37 years,
son of late C. Ramchand.
(By Sri S Chennaraya Reddy, Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant/s:- M/s. Videotronics,
No.108, S.P. Road, Bangalore 560 002.
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. Kishore Chabria,
aged about years,
fathers name not known to plaintiff.
(By Sri M.T. Nanaiah and Associates, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 30.10.2008
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence 19.10.2011
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 01.08.2018
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 9 9 1
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
.
2 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or its agents, servants, administrators, henchmen, etc., from releasing CDs, VCDs, DVDs or in any format in respect of the schedule films, during the subsistence of agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
2) Brief facts of plaintiff's case are that:
The plaintiff is a firm carrying on the business of buying, marketing, processing VHS Videogram, CDs DVDs in relation to feature films. The plaintiff purchases rights of such films from its producers, distributors, etc. M/s. Rajassu Films Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru acquired rights in respect of several Kannada Movies from M/s. Rakshiha Films, Bengaluru under agreement dated 6.9.1990. The said M/s. Rajassu Films Pvt., Ltd., executed rights agreement in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 46 Kannada feature films including film 'HENDTHIGELBEDI'. 3 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008
M/s. V.S.N. Productions executed rights agreement dated 18.8.1995 in respect of film 'MAHASHAKTHI MAYE' in favour of the plaintiff.
M/s. V.S.N. Production executed rights agreement dated 14.7.1994 in respect of film 'MANIKANTANA MAHIME' in favour of M/s. Kiran Enterprises, who in turn assigned the rights in favour of the plaintiff under agreement dated 15.8.1994.
M/s. Shakthi Productions executed rights agreement dated 3.2.1996 in respect of film 'KRANTHI KUMAR', 'DADA', 'PREETHI' and 'SHANKAR SUNDAR' in favour of M/s. K.C.N. Enterprises, who in turn assigned the rights in favour of the plaintiff under agreement dated 28.3.2006.
M/s. Varuna Movies executed rights agreement dated 5.9.1996 in respect of film 'YETU HEDURETU' in favour of M/s. K.C.N. Enterprises, who in turn assigned the rights in favour of M/s. Swastik Disttributors, under agreement 4 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 dated 17.7.1997 and hereafter assigned in favour of the plaintiff.
M/s. Vama productions executed rights agreement dated 27.1.1989 in respect of film 'HASYARATNA RAMAKRISHNA' and other movies in favour of Sri Ashok. S. Katwe, who in turn assigned the rights under agreement dated 18.12.1995 in favour of B.S. Nagarani, who in turn assigned the rights in favour of the plaintiff under agreement dated 21.4.2000.
Mr. A. Prakash who had rights in respect of Kannada feature film 'SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA' sold the rights to Mrs. B.R. Nagarani who in turn conveyed the rights in favour of the plaintiff under agreement dated 21.4.2000.
Similarly, the plaintiff acquired rights in respect of Kannada feature film titled 'SHABBARMALE SWAMY AIYAPPA' from its producers/ distributors and the plaintiff has been exploiting the said negative rights, however, the original agreement has been lost and the plaintiff has lodged 5 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 police complaint. The plaintiff has already released the CDs and DVDs of the said movies freely in the market ever since then. The plaintiff is entitled to enjoy exclusive rights over the same and the vendors of the plaintiff have also made it clear that they have not created any such rights earlier in favour of any one else. The plaintiff after payment of valuable consideration entered into the above said agreements and he has become sole and exclusive rights holder to distribute, market, exhibit, telecast, lease or hire or licence or to deal with CDs VCDs DVDs etc. The defendant is said to be a dealer in making CDs VCDs DVDs etc., and he is not entitled to reproduce the schedule films or deal with the same in any manner with respect to the movies acquired by the plaintiff firm under the said agreements. Any such acts are in contravention of the copyrights act and the provisions of Information Technology Act. The defendant is not entitled to copy or make use of the said films in any manner illegally. The plaintiff learnt that defendant firm is selling some of the 6 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 films of which rights were obtained by the plaintiff lawfully under the aforesaid agreements. The plaintiff made attempt to contact the defendant on 23.10.2006, but in vain. Hence the plaintiff approached police, but they did not take any steps. The defendant either itself or through its agencies are likely to reproduce the films by processing the same to CDs, VCDs, DVDs or in any other format and sell the same in market. Hence the defendant is liable to be restrained from marketing the same since the plaintiff firm is entitled to enjoy the rights under the aforesaid agreements. Otherwise the plaintiff will be put to great hardship, irreparable loss and injury. The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.10.2008. Hence the suit.
3) After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to the defendant. In-response to the summons, the defendant appeared before this court through its counsel and filed written-statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint and further contended that There are several piracy cases are pending for adjudication 7 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 in different courts against the plaintiff. The defendant is carrying on his business in accordance with law. One Mr. Mahesh V. Dand has filed suit in O.S. No. 23/2007 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hubli, against the plaintiff and in the said suit, the court was pleased to grant interim order of temporary injunction restraining plaintiff from dealing with the movies 'HENDTTHIGELBEDI', 'YETU HEDURETU', 'KRISHNA DEVARAYA', 'INSPECTOR KRANTHI KUMAR'. The plaintiff has come up with the present suit with a malafide intention to spoil the reputation and business of the defendant. The defendant is entitled to enjoy the schedule films and market its products. The plaintiff is affecting or disturbing the business of the defendant by creating false and fabricated documents without having any right over the same. There is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. For all these reasons, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 8 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008
4) On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has got a right to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule Kannada Feature films?
(2) Whether there is a cause of action for the suit?
(3) What decree or order?
5) The plaintiff in order to prove his case, got filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The same was taken as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 15 and closed his side. On the other hand, inspite of grant of sufficient time and opportunity defendants have not chosen to lead evidence nor produced any documents in support of their case and hence on 5.6.2008 the side of defendants is taken as closed.9 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008
6) I have heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel, he also filed written argument. On the other hand defendant and counsel were not present and not addressed arguments on behalf of defendant.
7) My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1) ........In the negative Issue No.2) ........In the affirmative Issue No.3) ........ As per the final orders, for the following:
REASONS
8) Issue No. 1:- PW1 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint averments and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P15. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant he has stated that since 15-20 years he is doing video and C.D. business. He is the proprietor plaintiff's business. He has not produced any documents to show that he is the proprietor of the plaintiff's business., regarding rights given to him by film producer, different agreements from different producers taken from different movies. He 10 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 has not produced any documents to show VSN Production has got right on the basis of documents. He has not produced documents to show that VSN Production is the original owner of movie 'MAHASHAKTHI MAYE'. His brother Rathanrai was the proprietor of the plaintiff's business, who transferred business. But he has not produced documents in this regard. He denied the suggestion that he has no right over films at Ex.P1 to 8. He admits the suggestion that O.S. No. 23/2007 is filed against the plaintiff before Hubli Court. It is further false to suggest that several piracy cases are pending against the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that he has not produced documents in support of Ex.P1 to 8. He denied the suggestion that original rights of Ex.P1 to 8 is with the defendant. He has not produced documents to show that M/s. Rajassu Films Pvt., Ltd., has given rights to him. He does not remember that for obtaining films they paid Rs.5,63,500/-. He does not know that defendant is also carrying on same business since several years. He does not know that one Santhosh was the owner of film 'HASYARATNA 11 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 RAMAKRISHNA' and he has no right over film 'HASYARATNA RAMAKRISHNA'. He denied the suggestion that he has no relation to this case and 46 films purchased from Rajassu. He got right over the film 'SHABBARMALE SWAMY AIYAPPA'. He got information regarding selling of films by the defendant to his customers without right, but he has no proof in this regard. He approached Silver Jubilee Police Station, but they asked him to approach Civil Court. He denied the suggestion that, defendant has no right to sell any films as stated by him. He further denied the suggestion that defendant alone got right over the films narrated in the plaint.
9) It is the case of the plaintiff that he is carrying on the business of buying, marketing, processing VHS Videogram, CDs DVDs in relation to feature films, documentaries, educational, art and cultural films for sale and or distrusting for commercial and private exhibition or video playback equipment and marketing and hiring the 12 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 pre recorded video cassettes, discs, tapes and in any other format in relation to the films. The plaintiff has further contended that he has acquired rights of suit schedule property under agreements. Ex.P9 to 11, 13 and 14 are the agreements relied upon by the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.P.9 to 11 it is noticed that the same are not in the name of the plaintiff, but they are standing in the name of Mr. M. Nagaraj, Mr. Ratan Rai. Whereas the plaintiff is represented by Mr. Deepak Roy. Therefore, it is crystal clear Ex.P9 to 11 are not executed in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P13 and 14 relied upon by the plaintiff are standing in his name dated 28.3.2006 said to have been executed by M/s. Swastik Distributors, Gandhinagar. But the said documents Ex.P13 and 14 are unregistered documents. Defendants have categorically denied the documents relied upon by the plaintiff at Ex.P9 to 11 and 13 and 14. It is the contention of the defendant that the said documents have been created by the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the rights of the schedule properties vests with the defendant. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant who is also 13 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 dealing with making CDs, VCDs, DVDs, etc., likely to reproduce the films by processing the same to CDs, VCDs and DVDs or any other formats and sell the same in the market of which the plaintiff has obtained right of distribution of CDs, VCDs, DVDs, i.e., suit schedule property. But, no documents are produced by the plaintiff to show that the defendant is likely to process the films into CDs, VCDs, DVDs, or in any other formats, etc., and sell the same in the market in respect of the suit schedule property, except such mere allegations against the defendant. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff at Ex.P9 to 11 are not executed in the name of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff at Ex.P9 to 11, 13 and 14 are unregistered documents which does not creates any rights to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and the same it has no value in the eye of law since the same are un registered documents. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that he obtained rights to produce CDs, VCDs, DVDs, etc., in respect of the suit schedule property and to 14 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 sell the same in the market has not been proved by the plaintiff and also the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is likely to re produce the CDs, VCDs, DVDs, etc., pertaining to suit schedule property of which the plaintiff has obtained right of distribution of CDs, VCDs, DVDs, etc., and sell the same in the market. Moreover, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he is the proprietor of plaintiff business. Pw-1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he is the proprietor of plaintiff firm. In the absence of production of document by the plaintiff to show that he is the proprietor of plaintiff business prima-facie the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is running the plaintiff business as narrated in the plaint.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has got right to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the negative.
15 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008
10) Issue No.2 :- The defendant in the written statement has contended that there is no cause of action for filing of the suit by the plaintiff. But, the defendant has not placed any material on record to show that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Merely because of taking such contention by the defendant without any proof, is not a ground to come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff has no cause of action. The intention of the parties at the time of filing the suit is to be taken in to consideration to come to the conclusion as to whether cause of action was arose for the plaintiff / parties for filing the suit. As per the contention of the plaintiff at para 15 of the plaint, the cause of action for the suit arose on 23.10.2008 when the plaintiff came to know that defendants likely to reproduce the films in respect of suit schedule property of which the plaintiff has obtained rights of distribution. Therefore, the plaintiff has come up with the present suit stating that the cause of action for the suit arose on 23.10.2008, which according to the plaintiff is correct. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file 16 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 the suit. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in the affirmative holding that there was cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit .
11) Issue No.3:- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 and 2, above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August 2018).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
17 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008SCHEDULE
1) Kannada feature film titled HENDTHIGELBEDI starring Ananth Nag Mahalakshmi and others and directed by Dinesh Babu.
2) Kannada feature film titled MAHA SHAKHI MAYE, starring Kalyan Kumar, B. Saroja Devi and Directed by Om Shakthi.
3) Kannada feature film MANIKANTANA MAHIME featuring Jayaprada, Vishnu, Nambiar and others and directed by K. Shankar.
4) Kannada feature film namely INSPECTOR KRANTHI KUMAR starring Ambarish, Bhavya and others and directed by A.T. Raghu.
5) Kannada feature film YETU HEDURETU starring Ambarish and others
6) Kannada feature film titled HASYARATNA RAMAKRISHNA and others starring Ananth Nag, Srinath, Aarthi and others and directed by B.S. Ranga.
7) Kannada feature film SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA
8) Kannada feature film SHABARRIMALE SWAMY AIYAPPA.
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE 18 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Mr. R. Deepak Roy LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 CD of Shabarimale Swamy Ayyappa Ex.P2 CD of Shri Krishnadevaraya Ex.P3 CD of Yetu Yeduretu Ex.P4 CD of Hasya Rathna Ramakrishna Ex.P5 CD of Henthigelbedi Ex.P6 CD of Mahashakthimaya Ex.P7 CD of Manikantana Mahime Ex.P8 CD of Inspector Kranthikumar Ex.P9 Original agreement dt 14.7.1994
Ex.P10 Original agreement dt 15.8.1994 Ex.P11 Original agreement dt 18.8.1995 Ex.P12 Letter addressed to Prasad Laboratory Bangalore dt 18.8.1995 Ex.P13 Video copy right agreement dt 28.3.2006 Ex.P14 Video copy right agreement dt 28.3.2006 Ex.P15 Copy of the police complaint LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S: NIL (B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE 19 O.S.No. 26734 / 2008 1.8.2018 Plf: by Sri ECR Judgment pronounced in the open court Defendant: by Sri MTN (Vide separate detailed Judgment) Judgment The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE