The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for the grant of an order of interim injunction, and the court may consider findings from similar cases and the balance of convenience in reaching a decision.

O.A.No.862 of 2008

1. This application has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent, its men, agents, servants or assigns from in any manner infringing the applicant's copyrights viz., the VCD and DVD copyrights in the films described in the schedule to the Judge's summons, pending disposal of the suit.

2. A.No.4841 of 2008

3. A.No.3708 of 2008

This application has been filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize the VCD's and DVD's of the schedule mentioned films manufactured and circulated by the 1st respondent and produce the same before this Hon'ble Court.

4. For convenience, the status of the parties in the suit is referred infra.

5. The applicant in O.A.No.862 of 2008 and A.No.3708 of 2008 is the plaintiff in C.S.No.747 of 2008 and the first respondent in those applications is the first defendant in C.S.No.747 of 2008. The first defendant is the applicant in A.No.4841 of 2008 and the plaintiff is the 1st respondent in the said application.

6. Heard Mr. K. Harishankar, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. C.Uma, learned counsel for the first defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit in his argument that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of the copy right of the plaintiff regarding 58 Tamil Cinematograph Films enlisted in the plaint and its VCD and DVD rights obtained through assignments from the defendants 2 to 20. He would further submit that the plaintiff is exploiting the copy right throughout India on the basis of the right obtained from the defendants 2 to 20. However, the first defendant is infringing the copy right of the aforesaid 58 films in a recent past. He would also submit that the first defendant has filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 in respect of 66 films which comprise the present 58 films referred in the plaint and he obtained an interim injunction against the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff had appeared through counsel and contested the injunction application, in which the High Court of Delhi had allowed the injunction only in respect of five films viz., 1) Karagattakaran 2) Puthiya Paravai 3) Ullam Ketkume 4) Meera; and 5) Villupaatukkaran and dismissed the applications in respect of the remaining 61 films, which include the suit 58 films enlisted in the plaint. He would also submit that the said order passed in I.A.Nos.10052 and 10722 of 2007 in C.S.No.1625 of 2007 dated 21.02.2008 was confirmed in the appeal filed in F.A.O. (O.S). No.121 of 2008 filed before the said Court in its order dated 14.03.2008 and the said order became final and therefore, the right of the 58 films as sought for by the plaintiff has been prima facie found in favour of the plaintiff by the High Court of Delhi. He would also submit in his argument that the first defendant neither filed a Review Application nor any Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it became final and a Contempt Application No.876 of 2008 was filed and it is pending.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further submit in his arguments that the agreements numbering about 24 produced by the plaintiff in the form of typed set would cover the 58 films and the said agreements would go to prove the prima facie ownership of the plaintiff. He would further submit that the suit before the Delhi High Court is still pending, however the first defendant is estopped from claiming any property right over the suit 58 films and its copy rights, since the Delhi High Court had found that the first defendant is not entitled to the copy rights of those films. He would further submit in his arguments that the first defendant in his counter had categorically admitted that he obtained the copy rights of the suit 58 films from the intermediaries, who obtained the right from the distributors. He would also submit in his argument