1999 Supreme(Bom) 877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Lodha, J.
Zee Telefilm Limited..... Plaintiff.
Versus
Aalia Productions others..... Defendants.
Notice of Motion No. 2781 of 1999 in Suit No. 4518 of 1999, decided on 24-11-1999.
Advocates appeared :
Virag Tulzapurkar with Ms. Dhruti Dholakiya i/by M. Dhruva Co., for plaintiff.
E.P. Bharucha with B.B. Sharma i/by Ms. Mohana Nair, for defendants.

Headnote:Section 15-Suit for copy rights-Since cannot claim copy right in episodes produced by defendant under a different title, but, however defendant restrained from using title, signature tune and music of programme.

       Section 18 - Section 18 - Enforcement of Negative Covenant Negative Covenant of a vague and uncertain assignment deed cannot be enforce.

       Section 18-Ad interim injunction -Since prima facie no Copyright vested with assignee under agreement, therefore, temporary injunction against transferor cannot be granted.

       Section 18-Copyright agreement-Copyrights was claimed on the basis of the assignment agreement given in Schedule II and addendum specifying there in concept/synop sis/story/script of the programmed. Rights were not specifically mentioned in the agreement which is rather uncertain and vague. In absence of the Schedule II, prima facie no Copyright seems vested with the assignee under the agreement, hence Temporary injunction against the transferor cannot be granted.

       Section 18-Enforcement of negative covenant-Since no dispute arose between the parties for the production of the episodes up to 65 episodes by the defendants. It cannot be said that in relation to episodes 66 to 104 even in the absence of specifications of concept etc., the defendants should be compelled to produce the episodes in the same format and structure used in episodes 1 to 65. Therefore, enforcement of negative covenants of an uncertain and vague agreement cannot be sought for by the plaintiffs.-It is true that in the assignment agreement Clauses 3, 15 (i) and 25 are negative covenants. Clause 3 provides that defendants shall not grant or in any way transfer any rights of the programme "Indias most wanted" to any other person, party of. organisation. Clause 15 (i) provides that defendants shall not enter into any agreement of sale of the rights of the programme, its music or any components to any third party and Clause 25 provides that the defendants agree that the right to use the title, signature tune, music, structure, format, etc. of the programme, in any manner at any time shall vest solely with the owner and the defendants shall not be entitled to use the title, signature tune, music, structure and format in any manner for this or any other programme produced for any other party, person, company or organisation.

       In the absence of Schedule II as a matter of fact the very use of the expression "programme" at all place:- in the agreement, prima facie is vague and incapable of enforcement. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant has produced episodes 1 to 65 and the concept of the programme is unsolved crime and for apprehending the criminals of those unsolved crimes and therefore, there is no vagueness and uncertainty in the programme. 11 is very difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. After all the plaintiffs have filed the suit basing their rights upon the agreement dated 28-8-1998 (Exhibit 8) and the addendum Exhibit C. There is clear reference of specification of programme as per Schedule I and II in the agreement and, therefore, merely because in the absence of Schedule II, the defendants produced 65 episodes and to the extent of 65 episodes no dispute arose between the parties, it cannot be said that in relation to episode 66 to 104 even in the absence of specifications of concept/synopsis/ story / script, the defendants should be compelled to produce the episodes in the some format and structure which were produced by him form episode No.1 to episode No. 65. The plaintiffs cannot seek enforcement of negative covenants of an uncertain, unspecific and vague agreement. Prima facie, therefore, I do not find any case in favour of the plaintiffs for enforcement of negative covenants.

       It is true that after the dispute arose between the parties, the defendants have produced the programme titled "Fugitive most wanted" which is being telecast on Doordarshan and the said programme also broadly deals with the unsolved crime as admitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendants but then in the absence of any specific rights assigned by the defendants in respect of concept / script/ story / synopsis/ structure and/or format of such programme, the plaintiffs cannot seek injunction against the defendants. Since I have found prima facie that the assignn1ent agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendants as regards structure, format, concept, synopsis and script vague and uncertain, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interim relief. for the reasons already indicated above I am not dealing with the aspects of the conduct of the plaintiffs raised by the defendants.

       Section 18-Use of title, signature tune and music of programme As per agreement the ownership of Copyright in the programme shall rest in the plaintiff when produced, The plaintiffs at the best can claim Copyright in the title 1 M.W. under which the defendants have not produced any episode after 65th episode, And to that extent the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the defendants from using the title 1 M.W. its signature tune and music but not under the different title,