Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. Patel, J.
Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Achla Sabharwal - Respondent
Interim Application (L) No. 4402 of 2021
Decided On : 21-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel, Aurup Dasgupta, Shruti Sardessai, Sonam Ghiya, Jinal Vani i/b Jhangiani and Narula
For the Respondents: Ashish Kamat, Ashwin Bhadang and Navin P. Sachanandani
In an application for an interim injunction in a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of having rights assigned to it, demonstrate that the balance of convenience tilts in its favor, and show that it would suffer irreparable prejudice if an injunction is not granted.
Headnote:
COPYRIGHT - INTERIM INJUNCTION - ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT - PRIMA FACIE CASE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - SUITABILITY OF GRANTING INJUNCTION - [SHEELA (1987 FILM)]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff (Goldmines) and Defendant (Sabharwal) are in a legal dispute over the assignment of copyright for the 1987 Hindi film Sheela. Both parties claim to be the true assignee of the copyright, with Goldmines tracing its rights through a series of assignments, and Sabharwal claiming a direct assignment from the film's producer, Dwarakish. The film's producer, Dwarakish, initially held the copyright and assigned it to Sharma in 2002, then to Swastik Distributors in 2007, and finally to Sabharwal in 2010. Goldmines claims to have acquired the copyright through assignments from Sharma in 2010 and Swastik Distributors in 2021. Both parties have been exploiting their claimed rights, leading to public notices, assignments with third parties, and legal complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rival claims of Goldmines and Sabharwal were irreconcilable and that there were significant discrepancies and conflicts between the various documents presented by Goldmines. The court noted that the 2002 Sharma Assignment and the 2007 Swastik Assignment could not coexist, and both were in conflict with the 2010 Sharma Agreement and the 2021 Swastik Agreement. The court also found that Dwarakish's 2021 Affidavit, submitted by Goldmines, further complicated matters and added to the confusion.
Issues: 1. Whether Goldmines has established a prima facie case of having rights assigned to it in the film Sheela. 2. Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favor of Goldmines. 3. Whether Goldmines would suffer irreparable prejudice if an injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Goldmines failed to establish a prima facie case of having rights assigned to it in the film Sheela. The court found that the various documents presented by Goldmines were contradictory and irreconcilable, and that Dwarakish's 2021 Affidavit further complicated matters. 2. The court did not consider the balance of convenience or the issue of irreparable prejudice since it found that Goldmines had not established a prima facie case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Goldmines' Interim Application for an injunction against Sabharwal, restraining her from holding herself out as the owner or assignee of the copyright in Sheela and from exploiting any rights in the film.
ORDER :
G.S. Patel, J.
1. Sheela is a 1987 Hindi motion picture. It starred, among others, Nana Patekar, Ranjeeta, Shahila Chaddha, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Paintal and others. Its producer was BS Dwarakish ("Dwarakish"), the sole proprietor of M/s. Dwarakish Chitra, based in Chennai. The Hindi version is a remake of a Kannada original with the title Africadalli Sheela. As the producer, Dwarakish originally held the copyright in Sheela.
2. The Plaintiff ("Goldmines") is a media entertainment company. The Defendant ("Sabharwal") is the sole proprietor of an enterprise called Media International, apparently also in much the same business as Goldmines.
3. The contest in this commercial intellectual property suit is which of the parties, Goldmines or Sabharwal, is the true assignee of the copyright in Sheela. Both claim to have agreements of assignment: Sabharwal's is later but is directly from Dwarakish. Goldmines claims a derivative title through intervening assignees and says that its predecessors took assignments long before Sabharwal. Nothing, therefore, remained with Dwarakish to assign to Sabharwal or anyone else. Both claim to have exploited copyright without protest from the other. At a very late stage, Goldmines has an affidavit from Dwarakish affirming his transactions with Goldmines' predecessors-in-title but saying nothing at all about his subsequent transaction with Sabharwal.
4. Both Mr. Andhyarujina for Goldmines and Mr. Kamat for Sabharwal have strived long and hard to tear apart each other's documents of title. The factual narrative is not complicated, but the documents will need close scrutiny.
5. Before I proceed to assess the documents and the contesting submissions on them, I believe it would be useful to set out some of the well-established legal principles that will govern in an interim application such as this.
B. THE LEGAL TESTS IN AN INTER-LOCUTORY APPLICATION
6. The test is of a prima facie case. This means, among other things, that Goldmines must demonstrate a facially convincing case of superior title. Its success or failure is not a matter of expedience. The fact that it may have spent money, or may have purported to exploit rights, will not give it rights if the documents on which it relies do not support the passing of copyright. Once this is established, then there are the questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury or prejudice. While making this assessment at an interlocutory stage, I am not to conduct a mini-trial.
7. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. : (1995) 5 SCC 545.: (AIR 1995 SC 2372), the Supreme Court, citing the earlier decision in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. : (1990) (Supp) SCC 727 : (AIROnline 1990 SC 156), said in paragraph 43:
"43. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests - (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case: (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff: and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right, for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresp
