Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

P.K. MISRA, J Both these appeals are directed against the common decision of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.803 of 1994 and Tr.C.S.No.279 of 1998.

2. C.S.No.803 of 1994 was filed by the present appellant against the present Respondents 1 & 2 for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the limited copyright, video-cum-television including satellite television, of the Tamil picture Mahanadhi for the entire India for perpetual period and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with such right by telecasting the said picture and for rendering accounts. Such suit was filed on 11.7.1994. Defendant No.2 in the aforesaid suit filed an independent suit in C.S. No.907 of 1994, subsequently transferred and numbered as Tr.C.S.No.279 of 1998, for declaration that it is the owner of the copyright in respect of Satellite Television broadcast relating to the pictures described in the plaint schedule wherein the picture Mahanadhi was included as S.No.1 and also for permanent injunction against the defendants. In such suit, the present appellant was impleaded as Defendant No.2.

3. For convenience, the appellant, who is the plaintiff in C.S.No.80 3 of 1994 and Defendant No.2 in the Tr.C.S.No.279 of 1998, is described as the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in the connected case is described as the contesting defendant, and the Producer of the film  Mahanadhi, who is the common Defendant No.1 in both the suits, is described as the Producer.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that there was an agreement dated 31 .1.1994 between the plaintiff and the Producer in respect of Tamil picture Mahanadhi. Under the said agreement, the Producer assigned the Video rights and the rights of performing the exhibition of the picture in any mode of Visual or acoustic presentation for commercial and non-commercial exploitation, for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- for the entire India. As per the case of the plaintiff, the rights assigned under such agreement included the broadcasting rights by means of a system for reproducing actual or recorded scene at a distance on a screen by radio transmission with appropriate sound and vision of distance object obtained or by means of latest digital technology or system. The Producer also assigned the right of exploitation of the said picture to general public in any media of visual or acoustic presentation and any cinematograph work produced by such process analogous to Cinematography. The right included the exploitation by means of a wire and wireless diffusion for communication to the public within the meaning of the Indian Copyright Act. It is his case that under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957 communication to the public means communication to the public in whatever manner, including communication through satellite, and the definition of broadcast includes television broadcast also. It is further asserted that the contesting defendant through its communication network had telecasted songs and clippings of the picture Mahanadhi during the month of June, 1994, infringing the plaintiffs limited copyright, which necessitated filing of C.S.No.803 of 1994.

6. The stand taken by the contesting defendant in the suit filed by the present appellant and the stand reflected in the suit filed by such contesting defendant being similar, it is only necessary to refer to the substance of the allegations made in the written statement of such contesting defendant. It has been contended in such written statement / plaint that the right to telecast through satellite had never been given to the plaintiff and it was given to such contesting defendant by agreement dated 13.6.1994, and therefore, such contesting defendant alone is entitled to telecast the picture through satellite television. It has been further stated that in the agreement between the Producer and the plaintiff there is no mention of the word  Satellite and the agreement dated 31.1.1994 in favour of the plaintiff only indicated the assignment of video rights over the picture. Various clauses in the agreement between the Producer and the plaintiff have been referred to in such written statement to highlight the above position. As already indicated, the contents in the written statement and the latter suit filed by the contesting defendant are similar, it is not necessary to refer to those allegations again.

14. ... Therefore, it is strange that the plaintiff has chosen to contend that the rights obtained by him includes the right to exploit or telecast the picture through satellite television. Admittedly broadcasting through satellite television can be done only by transmitting the picture by uplinking it with satellites which are stationed outside the Indian territory and in the case of SUN TV the satellite uplinking is done in Philipines. The plaintiff does not claim that he has overseas right in respect of the picture MAHANADHI. But, the very telecast through satellite television is possible only if the picture is taken to Philipines and then broadcasted through satellite television. Therefore, what the plaintiff has acquired under Ex.A-1 agreement is only video right and he can only transfer the picture by getting sound and negatives ad recording them in cassettes and exhibiting or telecasting them through any modes. So, the plaintiff has acquired only the right to transfer the picture into cassettes and by playing the cassettes the picture can be exhibited either through Video Cassettes Recorder or Video Cassette Player. The agreement does not mention about the right to telecast the picture through television much less satellite television. There is no point in the plaintiff ref2erring us to the meaning or connotation of copyright found in the Copyright Act, 1957. The entire copyright vests with the first defendant/Producer and he has chosen to enter into agreements in respect of limited copyright and one such right given to the plaintiff is the right to exploit the picture MAHANADHI through Video cassettes. Therefore, there is absolutely no meaning in the plaintiff contending that by virtue of Ex.A-1 he has obtained right to telecast the picture through satellite television. On the basis of the aforesaid main finding, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and that of the contesting defendant was decreed.