JUDGMENT :

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

1. This is a suit for infringement of copyright.

2. Briefly, the petitioners no 1 and 2 claim to be the owners of the copyright in ten separate cinematographic films namely ‘Nishijapon’, ‘Bibar’, ‘Tapasya’, ‘Achin Pakhi’, ‘Charulata’, ‘Mahanagar’, ‘Mahapurush’, ‘Joy Baba Felunath’ and ‘Nayak’ (the films) which are all immemorial Bengali films.

3. R.D. Bansal was a renowned film producer and had funded films directed by Satyajit Ray. Six of the ten films which form the subject matter of this suit were directed by Satyajit Ray and produced by R.D. Bansal. The petitioner no.1 (HUF) is the producer and owner of the copyright in the films. The petitioner no. 2 is also the legal heir of R.D. Bansal and the Karta of the petitioner no. 1 (HUF). The petitioner no.2 is also the producer of the remaining four non Satyajit Ray Films.

4. By an agreement dated 4 July 2017, the petitioner no. 1 had granted the petitioner no. 3 a license for telecasting the films for a period of eight years through wire and wireless channels exclusively within the territory of India only [excluding through Lok Sabha TV and the national network of India (Doordarshan)]. Significantly, telecasting and broadcasting of the films through the worldwide web was specifically excluded and did not form the subject matter of the license agreement.

5. Thereafter, by a non-exclusive license agreement dated 21 December 2017, the petitioner no. 3, sub-licensed exploitation rights in the films to the respondent nos. 2 to 4. The agreement also restricted satellite television broadcasting rights and digital rights (limiting the exercise of the rights on the digital platform owned by the satellite channel) only within the territory of India and did not include telecast through “world wide web” or “internet rights”.

6. In or about the last week of May 2021, the petitioners came to learn that the licensed films were being broadcast through satellite channels as well as the Over-The-Top (OTT) platform of the respondent no.1 (Zee5), run, owned and controlled by the respondent no.1 in Bangladesh. Thereafter, the petitioners also came to learn that the respondent no. 2 had assigned their rights in the films to the respondent no. 1. Diverse emails were exchanged between the parties, whereby the petitioner no. 1 requested the respondents for a copy of the assignment agreement executed by and between the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2. It is alleged that the broadcast of the films on the digital platform outside the licensed jurisdiction constitutes infringement and breach of the rights of the petitioners. It is also contended that the respondent no. 2 could not have conveyed rights which they never possessed nor had under the agreement dated 21 December 2017. In this connection, reliance is placed on Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Maharaja Probirendra M. Tagore, AIR 1966 Cal 405.

7. In this background, the license agreement dated 21 December 2017, was terminated on the ground of inter alia violation of clause 7 the respondent no.2 having sub-licensed the same without any prior intimation to the plaintiff no.1 and that the respondent no. 1 had unauthorisedly broadcast the films over the digital platform outside the territory of India which is beyond the scope of the license agreement.

8. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is contended that the agreement dated 21 December 2017, permitted the respondent no. 2 exclusive satellite television broadcasting rights for telecasting the films in India. It is also alleged that by an agreement dated 27 December 2017, the respondent no. 2 had assigned the aforesaid rights in the films to the respondent no. 1. Thus, the respondent no. 1 was broadcasting the films in terms of the assignment agreement dated 27 December 2017. The respondent no.1 also alleges that the petitioners were aware of the terms of the assignment agreement dated 27 December 2017.

9. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 disputes the ownership of the petitioner