Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 2151
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
M/s. 7th Channel Communications, by its Proprietor, Manicam Narayanan & Others
Versus
M/s. Roja Combines, rep. By its Proprietor M. Kaja Mydeen, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 & Others
O.S.A. No.80 of 2007, 125, 127, 131, 132, 133 135, 136 of 2007 AND O.S.A.No.344 of 2006
Decided On : 13-07-2007
The plaintiff having invested huge amount, it would be quite unjust and unequitable to deny temporary injunction.
Headnote:
TELUGU VERSION RIGHTS - [SUBJECT] - O.S.A.Nos.80, 125, 127, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 344/2007 - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The Court held that the plaintiff has proved his prima facie case and his right has to be protected. The Court also held that the plaintiff having invested huge amount, it would be quite unjust and unequitable to deny temporary injunction. In the event of refusal of injunction, and if others exploit the film, the loss suffered by the plaintiff would not be ascertainable. On the other hand, if Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff in respect of Telugu Version even if the other contesting parties ultimately succeed, loss suffered by the Defendants could easily be ascertained. The Court further held that the plaintiff is appointed as party receiver for the Telugu Version of the suit picture. The sixth Defendant/ Laboratory is directed to deliver prints of the Telugu Version of the Tamil colour Film "Vettayadu Vilayadu" to the plaintiff. Appointment of plaintiff is subject to his rights and duties as stated in paragraph Nos.61, 62, 63 and 64.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to Telugu Version of the film "Vettayadu Vilayadu". The first Defendant originally assigned the Telugu Version of the suit film in favour of the second Defendant - Proprietor of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises [for short, SVCE] under an Agreement dated 05.05.2005. In the letter of arrangement between plaintiff and the first Defendant dated 210. 2005, Telugu Version of the suit film was also transferred to the plaintiff. The first Defendant has assured to take up the responsibility of marketing the Telugu rights for a sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- onbehalf of the plaintiff Channel. The Agreement in favour of D-2 – SVCE was cancelled by a subsequent Agreement dated 211. 2005 with the payment of a sum of Rs.29,00,000/-to the second Defendant. Copy rights of Telugu Version of suit film was assigned to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,30,00,000/- by a separate Agreement dated 112. 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff has proved his prima facie case and his right has to be protected. The Court also held that the plaintiff having invested huge amount, it would be quite unjust and unequitable to deny temporary injunction. In the event of refusal of injunction, and if others exploit the film, the loss suffered by the plaintiff would not be ascertainable. On the other hand, if Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff in respect of Telugu Version even if the other contesting parties ultimately succeed, loss suffered by the Defendants could easily be ascertained. The Court further held that the plaintiff is appointed as party receiver for the Telugu Version of the suit picture. The sixth Defendant/ Laboratory is directed to deliver prints of the Telugu Version of the Tamil colour Film "Vettayadu Vilayadu" to the plaintiff. Appointment of plaintiff is subject to his rights and duties as stated in paragraph Nos.61, 62, 63 and 64.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff has proved his prima facie case and his right has to be protected.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff has proved his prima facie case and his right has to be protected. The Court also held that the plaintiff having invested huge amount, it would be quite unjust and unequitable to deny temporary injunction. In the event of refusal of injunction, and if others exploit the film, the loss suffered by the plaintiff would not be ascertainable. On the other hand, if Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff in respect of Telugu Version even if the other contesting parties ultimately succeed, loss suffered by the Defendants could easily be ascertained. The Court further held that the plaintiff is appointed as party receiver for the Telugu Version of the suit picture. The sixth Defendant/ Laboratory is directed to deliver prints of the Telugu Version of the Tamil colour Film "Vettayadu Vilayadu" to the plaintiff. Appointment of plaintiff is subject to his rights and duties as stated in paragraph Nos.61, 62, 63 and 64.
Final Decision: The Court held that the plaintiff has proved his prima facie case and his right has to be protected. The Court also held that the plaintiff having invested huge amount, it would be quite unjust and unequitable to deny temporary injunction. In the event of refusal of injunction, and if others exploit the film, the loss suffered by the plaintiff would not be ascertainable. On the other hand, if Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff in respect of Telugu Version even if the other contesting parties ultimately succeed, loss suffered by the Defendants could easily be ascertained. The Court further held that the plaintiff is appointed as party receiver for the Telugu Version of the suit picture. The sixth Defendant/ Laboratory is directed to deliver prints of the Telugu Version of the Tamil colour Film "Vettayadu Vilayadu" to the plaintiff. Appointment of plaintiff is subject to his rights and duties as stated in paragraph Nos.61, 62, 63 and 64.
R. Banumathi, J.
Telugu Version rights of Tamil Version "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu" is the subject matter of these appeals arising out of common order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2007.
2. Entanglement in litigation by persons who claim to have advanced monies to the first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines led to the filing of four suits. The Interlocutory Applications were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order. All the appeals arise out of common order and since common points arise for consideration, all the Appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in C.S.No.168/2006, which is a comprehensive suit.
.3. Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows: -
.The first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines is the Producer and absolute owner of Tamil Colour Film titled "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu" [hereinafter referred as suit film] starring Kamalhassan and others, directed by Goutham and music by Harris Jeyaraj. The first Defendant appears to have taken finance from all available resources. As the first Defendant was facing financial constraints, the entire production negative rights and sole marketing rights of suit film was transferred in favour of 7th Channel Communications, plaintiff herein, without any restriction or exception of any areas, for a mutually agreed sum of Rs.14,00,000/- and that transfer was by a letter of arrangement dated 210. 2005. As a consideration for transfer of negative rights, plaintiff has paid a huge sum as indicated in the said Agreement dated 210. 2005. Plaintiff became Negative Rights Holder and sole possession of marketing rights of the suit film without any encumbrance or restriction.
4. The present dispute relates to Telugu Version of the film "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu". The first Defendant originally assigned the Telugu Version of the suit film in favour of the second Defendant - Proprietor of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises [for short, SVCE] under an Agreement dated 05.05.2005. In the letter of arrangement between plaintiff and the first Defendant dated 210. 2005, Telugu Version of the suit film was also transferred to the plaintiff. The first Defendant has assured to take up the responsibility of marketing the Telugu rights for a sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- onbehalf of the plaintiff Channel. The Agreement in favour of D-2 – SVCE was cancelled by a subsequent Agreement dated 211. 2005 with the payment of a sum of Rs.29,00,000/-to the second Defendant. Copy rights of Telugu Version of suit film was assigned to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,30,00,000/- by a separate Agreement dated 112. 2005.
5. Case of the plaintiff is that the first Defendant assigned the right of the Telugu Version of suit film in favour of the plaintiff under an Agreement dated 112. 2005 for a total consideration of Rs.2,30,00,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff is the absolute Copyright Holder of Telugu Version of the suit film. Plaintiff is said to have arranged for a payment of Rs.29,00,000/- payable by the first Defendant to the second Defendant for cancellation of the prior Agreement. Through 6th Defendant Laboratory, plaintiff has learnt that Defendants 3 to 5 also claim the said Copyright. Asserting Telugu Version rights and alleging that Defendants are laying claim over the suit film, plaintiff has filed suit for Permanent Injunction for declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner of the copyright pertaining to the Telugu Version of the suit film and also for mandatory injunction to direct 6th Defendant Laboratory to deliver prints of Telugu Version to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed applications for Temporary Injunction directing the 6th Defendant Laboratory to deliver the prints of Telugu Version of suit film and to restrain the Defendants from interfering with copyright of the Telugu Version.
6. The Film Producer - first Defendant did not enter appearance. All other Defendants
