Point of Law : Power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well-settled in a host of judicial pronouncements.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved and displeased with Ext.P1 order passed in I.A.No.3/2022 in O.S.No.4/2022 by the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad, the first defendant in the above suit has filed the original petition. The first respondent in the original petition is the plaintiff, and the respondents 2 to 13 are the defendants 2 to 13 in the suit.

2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext.P1 order, in a nutshell, are :

(i) The first respondent has filed the suit, inter alia, to declare that it is the first owner of copyright in the musical work and sound record named ‘Navarasam’ composed and performed by a musical band named ‘Thaikkudam Bridge’.

(ii) Along with the suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.3/2022 against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 12 to pass an order of temporary injunction to restrain the above respondents from exhibiting, releasing on Over the Top platforms, streaming, and/or in any manner communicating to the Public in and/or through their services; the Cinematographic Film – ‘Kantara’ with the synchronised song ‘Varaha Roopam’, and pass an ad-interim order to the same effect, without notice, till the disposal of the application.

(iii) The court below has restrained the respondents from exhibiting, releasing on OTT platforms, streaming, distributing or communicating to the public the film ‘Kantara’ with the synchronised song ‘Varaha Roopam’ until further orders.

(iv) The petitioner is a limited liability partnership firm and is the producer of the film ‘Kantara’, which includes the song ‘Varaha Roopam’.

(v) The first respondent issued to the petitioner Ext.P4 legal notice dated 19.10.2022. In response to the notice, the petitioner issued Ext.P4 limited holding response.

(vi) The petitioner also filed a caveat before the District Court, Kozhikode, against the first respondent to defend its rights. However, immediately after Ext.P4 notice was received, a suit was filed by the musical band Thaikkudam Bridge before the District Court, Kozhikode, as O.S.No.14 of 2022 and an ad-interim order of injunction was passed on 28.10.2022. The said suit and the present suit are drafted by the same counsel.

(vii) On 05.11.2022, the petitioner strangely received a copy of the caveat filed by Thaikkudam Bridge before this Court, pre-empting a first appeal against Ext.P.1 order.

(viii) The first respondent has mala fide filed the suit before the court below to circumvent the caveat filed by the petitioner before the District Court, Kozhikode.

(ix) The impugned order has been passed in excess of the jurisdiction of the court below and without establishing the tenets for the grant of an ad-interim injunction.

(x) The alleged deed of assignment was purportedly entered into between the musical band and the first respondent in 2015, but the song ‘Navarasam’ was published in 2017.

(xi) There is no copyright infringement and/or violation of any third-party rights in the composition and use of Varaha Roopam. The District Court, Kozhikode, has passed Ext.P12 order of injunction on the basis that the musical band is the owner of the copyright in Navarasam.

(xii) The suit is highly belated, and no ex-parte interim injunction ought to have been passed. The trailer of the film was released in September 2022, and the film was released on 30.09.2022. The film is being shown in 30 countries in over 6000 theatres.

(xiii) The first respondent has not complied with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 (a) of the Code.

(xiv) No irreparable injury would be caused to the first respondent if no injunction order passed in the suit.

(xv) The court below does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the light of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015.

(xvi) The first respondent has deliberately undervalued the suit vague to forum shop and oust the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. The court below has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the s