SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Cal) 1219

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA & KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY
SAREGAMA India Ltd & Others
Versus
Puneet Prakash Mehra & Others
APO No. 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 261 & 265 of 2010, C.S. No. 101, 112 & 109 of 2010, G.A. 1423, 2128, 1970, 2163 & 1731 of 2010
Decided On : 01-10-2010

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The 1981 assignment purportedly transferred copyright including contract works, publication, sound and TV broadcasting, and exclusive rights to SAREGAMA (!) (!) - The definition of "contract works" as all literary, dramatic or musical works performed in contract recordings and the assignment’s breadth includes sole and exclusive rights to make records embodying the contract recordings (!) (!) - The court held that SAREGAMA’s rights under the 1981 agreement may extend to the entire song and not only the soundtrack, affecting rights of Mehras and Kalyanji/Anandji (!) (!) - The Special Right under Section 57 and moral rights considerations were discussed, with a stance that infringement requires a prima facie case and that moral rights protection may apply in cases of mutilation/distortion, but at interim stage tolerance varied (!) (!) - The court deemed SAREGAMA’s license to Nadiadwala/EROS potentially permissible under the 1981 assignment, with findings that there was a written document granting license, affecting Mehra’s suit and Mehra’s injunction against SAREGAMA (!) (!) - Maintainability of appeal and the interim injunction orders were analyzed, concluding that SAREGAMA’s appeal on the 30th April 2010 order was maintainable despite undertakings, and that the interim injunctions were set aside with security measures for future royalties (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that copyright in music exists as a bundle of rights (lyrics, music, sound recording) and that transfer of the song’s rights may vest in the assignee, altering who can license or exploit the work (!) (!)

Question 1?

How to determine whether SAREGAMA acquired copyright in the song "Apni To Jese Tese" under the 1981 assignment and whether Anandji/Kalyanji retain any first ownership rights.

Question 2?

What is the scope of the "contract works" and the rights transferred under clause 3A and clause 8 of the 1981 agreement, including the right to re-record, synchronize, and license?

Question 3?

What are the criteria for granting interim injunctions in copyright disputes, including balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and special rights under Section 57?


Judgment :

K. J. Sengupta, J

All the aforesaid appeals are heard analogously against the judgment and orders dated 29th April, 2010 and dated 30th April 2010. Two judgment and orders dated 29th April 2010 passed by the learned Trial Judge in two different suits on two different applications, and the judgment and order dated 30th of April 2010 was passed in connection with the suit No.101 of 2010. The appellant SAREGAMA India Limited (hereinafter referred to in short ‘SAREGAMA’) preferred appeal against the judgment and order dated 29th April 2010 and then against 30th April 2010. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Limited (in short ‘Nadiadwala’) preferred its appeal against judgment and orders dated 30th April 2010 and 29th April 2010, EROS International Media Private Limited (in short ‘EROS’) preferred appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th April 2010; Anandji Virji Shah and others (hereinafter in short ‘Anand’) preferred appeal against judgment and order dated 29th April 2010 refusing to grant interlocutory relief in favour of this appellants.

It is pertinent to record that all the aforesaid orders were passed in three civil suits by the learned Trial Judge on the respective applications for interlocutory relief at the ad interim stage and those applications are still pending for final hearing. But it appears the effect of the two orders of the learned Trial Judge is so substantial that those really dispose of the interim applications finally if not the suit itself.

The short fact which give rise to the present appeals is as follows:-

One M/s. Prakash Mehra Productions had produced a feature film ‘Laawaris’ in the year 1981. By an agreement in writing dated 19th July 1981 Prakash Mehra, since deceased being the sole proprietor of the said M/s. Prakash Mehra Productions, assigned the rights in the literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and the soundtrack and recording of the songs of the said film unto and in favour of erstwhile Gramophone Company India Limited being predecessor-in-interest of the appellant SAREGAMA. However, the right acquired under the said agreement is seriously disputed by the said Mehras and also by Anand Virji Shah and others who are claiming exclusive copyright in the music of the songs. The SAREGAMA in terms of the right acquired under the said agreement, thereafter, by an agreement dated 11th February, 2010 entered with the one Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Private Limited (hereinafter in short Nadiadwala) and Super Cassettes Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Super) granted licence amongst others to record and synchronize the lyrics and music of the song “Apni To Jese Tese” composed by Kalyanji Anandji and lyrics by Prakash Mehra in the film “Laawaris”. Nadiadwala according to the terms of the said agreement of 11th February 2010 synchronized the music and lyrics of few lines of the said song “Apni To Jese Tese’ in the song with first words ‘Aapka Kaya Hoga (Dhanno)’ in film “Housefull”. After producing the film Nadiadwala granted distribution right of the said film to EROS International Media Private Limited (hereinafter in short EROS). The scope of agreement dated 11th February 2010, inexhaustively is grant of licence by SAREGAMA to Nadiadwala and Super Cassettes to record and synchronize use, exploit recreated sound recording the said song with the lyrics and music ‘Apni To Jese Tese’ from the film LAAWARIS by physical and non-physical means, modes or formats including on mobile and digital platform and to make any sound recording embodying the recreated sound recording either alone or together with any other sound recording etc. and also to exploit new film HOUSEFULL by any mean including VCP, DVD, television, internet etc.

By letter dated 4th March 2010, Prakash Mehra Productions through the heirs of Prakash Mehra alleged that Nadiadwala has used for his movie HOUSEFULL one of their song ‘Apni To Jese Tese’ from movie LAAWARIS, but Nadiadwala has not approache



























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top