The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute and indefinite assignment of sound recording rights in cinematograph films, granting the appellant exclusive rights to play, use, and exploit the sound recordings, including their reproduction in other media.

JUDGMENT

I. P. Mukerji, J. - Eleven hindi cinematograph films are involved in this appeal. They are:-

1. Do Badan. 2. Babu 3. Yahudi. 4. Awara Baap. 5. Duniya. 6. Bombai Ka Babu. 7. Aaj Aur Kal. 8. Teen Devian. 9. Dushman. 10. Loafer. 11. Dhanwan.

2. A commercial film in our country is never complete without a string of songs. A scene where actors are singing a song is filmed. Thereafter, the song from the sound track is attached to that part of the film, so that it runs with the scene, matching the lip of the actor and the picturization.

3. The respondents/defendants (respondents) claim the complete right of exploitation of these movies. They claim the audio, video and sound recording rights. They also assert that they are exclusively entitled to broadcast, publish, download and stream these works. The appellant/plaintiff (appellant) on the other hand says that several years ago and more than 50 years ago in the 1960's in some cases, they (which includes their predecessor-in-interest) had acquired from the producers of these films the exclusive right to play, broadcast, publish, reproduce in other media, the songs in audio form and other sound recordings in these films. They also had copyright over the underlying musical and literary works to the exclusion of all others. Any other rights in these films could have been assigned to others but not the audio songs and sound recording.

4. This copyright appeal is from a final interlocutory order made by a learned single judge on 22nd December, 2017. By this order the respondents were restrained from using the sound track of three films 'Awara Baap, Babu and Dhanwan' categorized as 'type B' films till the disposal of the suit. They were allowed to use the digital recording of the songs in the sound track of the eight films categorized as 'types A and C', each type consisting of four films, subject to keeping accounts of the revenue earned by this exploitation and furnishing a quarterly statement of it to the appellant.

5. At the time of moving this interim application, on 5th November, 2015 the learned interlocutory judge had granted an order of injunction for a limited period, which was subsequently extended from time to time, restraining the respondents from in any way exploiting the sound track of any of these films. This was modified as stated above by the final order.

6. This appeal is from that part of the final order permitting the respondents to exploit the types A and C film sound tracks and to be more specific the songs in their audio version and the other sound recordings.

7. When the appeal was being heard, learned counsel for the respondents assured the court that till its disposal, his clients would not show the songs in any media.

8. The producer of the film is the first owner of the copyright under Section 17 proviso (a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 in the sound track along with the copyright in other works in these films.

9. In or about October, 2015, particularly by their email dated 21st October, 2015 the respondents started claiming copyright over the audio musical and mp3 rights of the songs in all the above films. They also claimed to be the owners of the musical, literary and all underlying works in the songs in those films. They said that those rights had been assigned to them by their assignor. They told the appellant that they had no right to use or exploit the sound recordings.

10. The respondents declared their source of right in the agreement dated 6th November, 2013 under which one Hemant Jain, sole proprietor of Jayashree Pravin Enterprises granted perpetual licence/copyright to the respondents to utilize or exploit the above films. Copyright in 546 films were in this way purported to be granted to the respondents by Hemant Jain. Hemant Jain in turn claimed to have acquired this right through diverse agreements entered into over a period of time with the assignees of the producers of these films. The appellant says that once the rights over the audio songs and oth