Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.Original Application No.761 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants its agents, officers, servants, representatives, franchise and all others in any capacity, acting for or on behalf of the defendants, from manufacturing, selling, distributing or in any other way infringing the plaintiff's exclusive right under the Copyright Act to deal in any sound recording composed or made by the defendants.

6.Original Application No.762 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from communicating with the plaintiff's dealers, suppliers or customers, in a manner adverse to the plaintiff company's reputation and in particular, from purporting to question the plaintiff's right to exploit the works composed or claim conflicting rights.

28.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that at the time of obtaining interim order, the plaint in C.S.No.308 of 2013 and all the documents, which are necessary for grant of injunction, were furnished to this Court. Only after the perusal of the said document, interim order was granted. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is suppression of material facts. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, by relying upon the judgment reported in (2005) 13 SCC 511 (cited supra) submitted that all the material facts were given in the plaint; therefore, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the submission of the learned counsel for the fourth defendant that the applications seeking interim injunction are liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts, cannot be countenanced.

5)Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as against the second defendant?

Point No.1:-

43.With regard to suppression of facts, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth defendant that the plaintiff had assigned all his rights including sound recording right, publishing right, public performance right, digital media right, new media right, collar tunes, ring tone right, true tone right, rights and interests in the musical composition created by him in favour of his wife Jeevaraja, on 24.11.2007. On the very same day, the plaintiff's wife executed two agreements, viz., sound recording licence agreement and sub-publishing agreement, in favour of the fourth defendant for a period of ten years to manufacture, sell and distribute music products in the format of CDs, DVDs, Casettes etc. Though in the assignment executed by the plaintiff in favour of his wife, no specific period was mentioned, in the subsequent agreements executed by the wife of the plaintiff in favour of the fourth defendant, licence period was mentioned as ten years. But, these agreements were not stated in the plaint. That apart, the plaintiff and his wife have executed a letter of authorization in favour of the fourth defendant on 24.11.2007 to file a complaint, prepare and sign all documents including statutory declaration, give evidence in court and all other matters incidental thereto. This letter of authorization was also suppressed in the plaint. Covering both the agreements viz., sound recording licence agreement and sub-publishing agreement, Annexure A was prepared containing the list of films. Subsequently, the addendum was prepared for converting C.D form into hard disc. This Addendum was signed by the plaintiff's wife and the fourth defendant. The list of film songs contained in pages 2 to 103 of the additional typed set of papers was signed by the plaintiff. But, these documents were suppressed in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. According to the learned counsel for the fourth defendant, had all these documents been brought to the notice this Court, this Court would not have granted interim injunction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the fourth defendant relied upon the judgment in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. V.Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC 853), and two other judgments referred to above and he prayed for vacating the interim order of injunction.

44. But, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is incorrect to state that there is suppression of material facts in the plaint. In fact, in the plaint, in paragraph No.4, the plaintiff has stated as follows:

"......the act of the defendants were questioned by the plaintiff and the defendants have resorted with legal proceeding with forged and invalid documents, projecting the same as documents for them to use the musical work is absolutely against law. "

The only proceeding pending is the earlier suit filed by the fourth defendant in C.S.No.308/2013. Even according to the plaintiff, all the agreements, namely Sound Recording Licence Agreement and Sub-publishing Agreement have become ineffective from 2012. Therefore, without mentioning the said agreements in detail, he had made a reference with regard to the said documents in paragraph 4 of the plaint. Therefore, all the material facts, which are necessary for granting interim injunction, was mentioned in the plaint. Moreover, the entire case of the plaintiff is based upon Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act; since no specific period was mentioned in the assignment executed by the plaintiff in favour of his wife, the agreement shall be deemed to be for a period of five years from the date of agreement. All these facts were brought before the Court at the time of granting interim injunction.