Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Maganlal Savani & Another vs Rupam Pictures (P) Ltd. & Others on 20 June, 2000

Sholay Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd. & ... vs Vodafone Esssar Mobile Services Ltd & ... on 9 May, 2011

Pictures vs. Coumbia Boradcasting Systems Inc. 216 F.2d 945 and International Film Distributors vs. Shri Rishi Raj, FAO(OS) No. 81/2002, whereas the learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 has referred to State of A.P. vs. Nahoti Venkatramana (1996) 6 SCC 409, Video Master vs. Nishi Production 1998 PTC (18) (Bom) and the learned counsel for defendants No.3 and 4 has referred to Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association & Ors. 1977 (2) SCC 820, Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 30, Federation of Hotels & Restaurant Association of India vs. Union of India, WP(C) No. 452 of 1999, decided on April 7, 2011, M/s International Film Distributors vs. Shri Rishi Raj, FAO (OS) No. 81 of 2002, decided on 23rd October, 2008, Super CS(OS)No.490/2011 Page 23 of 26 Cassette Industries Ltd. vs. Punit Goenka & Anr. 2009 (40) PTC (Del), M/s Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Lizard Lounge, RFA(OS) No. 57 of 2008, decided on 03rd November, 2008, AA Associates vs. Prem Goel, 94 (2001) DLT, 671, Anand Virji Shah vs. Ritesh Sidhwani, Suit (L) No. 2993 of 2006, decided by Bombay High Court on 17th October, 2006, Shemaroo Video P. Ltd. vs. Movie Tee Vee, Suit No. 1902/2005, decided by Bombay High Court on 06th October, 2005, Maganlal Savani vs. Rupam Pictures (P) Ltd. Bombay High Court 2000 PTC 556, Entertaining Enterprises Madras & Anrs.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V K Jain - Full Document

Lahari Recording Co. P.Ltd vs Jain Television (Mala Publicity ...

25. This Court, on a careful scrutiny of pleadings, framed five issues and Issue No.2 is whether limited copyright i.e., video rights includes TV and satellite rights and Issue No.4 is whether the defendant has acquired satellite rights in respect of the Telugu version of the film ROJA. During the course of arguments in the Suits, reliance was placed upon the judgments in P.Thulasidas v. K.Vasanthakumari [1991-1-LW.220], Maganlal Savani and Others v. Rupam Pictures (p) Ltd and others [AIR 2000 Bombay 416] and Laxmi Video Theatre v. State of Haryana [AIR 1993 SC 2328]. Reliance was also placed upon Sections 18(2) and 19(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and this Court has recorded findings in paras 16, 17 and 19 and it is relevant to extract the same:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Shemaroo Video P. Ltd. And Ors. vs Movie Tee Vee Enterprises And Ors. on 6 October, 2005

Thus it has been contended that the argument advanced by the learned counsel is infact contrary to the facts on record because admittedly though the plaintiff has argued that only VHS rights are given to the defendant No. 1 and 2 still the agreement dated 20.9.2002 indicates that the said rights are also conferred again by the plaintiff No. 2 in breach of the said lease agreement to the plaintiff No. 1. Learned counsel has further argued that when rights are given in 16mm size film and of any reduced gauge then the video rights can be included in any form of tapes and there is no restriction under the lease agreements that the said video rights can be utilised only in the format of VHS tapes. It has been further contended that the word 'reduced sizes' infact includes the VCD and DVD because VCD and DVD is nothing but a reduced size of the video tapes. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Maganlal Savani and Anr. v. Rupam Pictures (p) Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2000 (4) Bom. C.R. 400 particularly para-6 thereof which reads as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1