IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. Chagla, J.
Trishul Media Entertainment – Applicant
Versus
Retrophiles Private Limited & Ors. – Defendants
Interim Application (L) No. 15925 of 2023 In Commercial IPR Suit (L) No.15922, 19353, 19425, 21493 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I, Rule 8 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 2(d)(vi) – Moral rights – Infringement –Held, it is well settled that such material cannot be produced merely on ground that through inadvertence document remained to be annexed - Apart from this, very nature of amendment is such that it seeks to change character of the present Suit from a Suit which is purely in a personal capacity in respect of personal rights into a representative Suit, which cannot be permitted - Amendment falls foul of provision of CPC namely Order 6, Rule 17 as well as Order 11, Rule 1 (5) of CPC read with Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Amendment though a pre-trial amendment cannot be allowed in circumstances of present case - Interim Applications are accordingly disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Interim Application (L) No.15925 of 2023 was filed on 14th June, 2023 and had been moved before this Court on 15th June, 2023. By order dated 15th June, 2023, this Court had noted that the subject film “Adipurush” is being released in the theater on 16th June, 2023. Paragraph 3 of the said order is relevant to produce, which reads as under :
“Mr. Ashish Kamat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant has raised preliminary issue of maintainability of the Suit. He states that the Applicant/Plaintiff has been given credit for character assets in the subject film and has tendered snap shot of the credits which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. It appears from the snap shot that the Plaintiff has been given credit under character assets. Thus, the grievance insofar as the Plaintiff regarding not being given credit in the subject film appears to be addressed.”
The Applicant/Plaintiff in the aforementioned Interim Application had applied for ad-interim relief including inter alia in Prayer Clause ‘a’, as follows :
“That the Plaintiffs/Applicants be given Credit in the film “Adipurush” to all the employees/agents and contract workers who had worked in the project for all the assets, layout, animation, compositing and such other supporting employees as part of the production of the film.”
2. There were other prayers including prayer for restraining the Defendants from releasing “Adipurush” (“subject film”) in theaters or on any OTT Platform or Online or any other film / television series incorporating the works authored by the Plaintiffs, by themselves or their employees or agents without giving due credits to the Plaintiffs or their employees or agents in the said film so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s moral rights in the works contained in Exhibit- A of the Plaint. It is not necessary to refer to the other prayers as on 15th June, 2023 when the aforementioned Interim Application had come up, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff had submitted that at this stage no ad-interim relief is being sought for in respect of the prayers other than giving of credit to the Applicant/Plaintiff. He had submitted that the Applicant/Plaintiff is not intending to prevent the release of the subject film, which was scheduled for release on the next day. Further, he had submitted that he would press for further ad-interim relief after opportunity was given to the Defendants to file their Affidavit-in-Reply to the Interim Application.
3. Considering that Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited had not been joined though the Company is a co-Producer of the subject film, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud has sought leave to amend the Plaint and Interim Application for joining Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited. Leave was accordingly granted and permission to carry out the amendment was also granted. Further directions were issued for the completion of pleadings i.e. filing of the Affidavit-in- Reply and Rejoinder.
4. It is relevant to note the circumstances in which Paragraph 3 of the said order dated 15th June, 2023 extracted above came to be passed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant on that day had raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the Suit. In view of the subject film releasing the next day, the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants, had stated that the Applicant/Plaintiff has been given credit for character assets in the subject film and tendered a snap shot of the credits which was taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. This Court had noted from the snap shot that the Plaintiff had been given credit under character assets and thus, it was observed by this Court that the grievance of the Plaintiff regarding not being given credit in the subject film appears to be addressed.
5. Thereafter, the Applicant/Plaintiff has taken out three Interim Applications.
6. The Interim Application (L) No.19353 of 2023 has been taken out
Chariman, T.N. Housing Board Vs. T.N. Ganpathy
K.S. Varghese Vs. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
Punjab National Bank Vs. Indian Bank
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N.
The Municipal Council Amravati v. Govind Vishnu Sarnaik & Ors
gpt-4
The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's gross delay in seeking relief precluded equity, and found no substantial similarity or evidence proving copyright infringement or passing off.
Interim injunctions must consider the prima facie case and balance of convenience, especially where prior rights and public airing exist.
The failure to obtain leave under Order I Rule 8, CPC does not entail dismissal of the suit itself, especially when the appellants were individually affected by the actions of the respondents.
Copy right of video songs – Interim injunction - No prejudice is caused to the Appellant by the impugned order. The objection to the exploitation by Respondent No.2 regarding publicity is irrelevant ....
The plaintiff's teaching method, including tuition classes outside school hours and notes beyond the curriculum, could make him the owner of copyright to that extent, a matter to be decided at trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that antecedent rights of third parties, acknowledged and accepted by the Plaintiff, cannot be challenged at a later stage, and the Plaintiff's rig....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.