Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1192
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Ilaiyaraja – Appellant
Versus
B. Narsimhasn, Agi Music Pvt., Ltd. & Others – Respondent
A.Nos. 7701 & 6795 of 2014 & O.A.Nos. 760 to 762 of 2014 in C.S.No. 625 of 2014
Decided on: 03-03-2015
For the Applicant:S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, R. Sathish Kumar, R4, S. Vijayaraghavan, R5, A. Selvendran, Advocates.
Headnote:
Contract Act - Sections 196 and 197 - Copyright Act - Section 19(5) - O.S. rules - Order 14 - Rule 8 – Civil Procedure Code - Order 2 - Rule 2 - Right to exploit works composed or claim conflicting rights – Claim of compensation - Permanent Injunction - Original Application has been filed by plaintiff to grant ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from violating rights of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule mentioned films in any way particularly by entering into or attempting to enter into or after entering into performing or assisting in performance of any agreement with any third party of suit schedule mentioned films - Original Application has been filed by plaintiff to grant ad-interim injunction restraining defendants its agents officers servants representatives franchise and all others in any capacity acting for or on behalf of defendants from manufacturing selling distributing or in any other way infringing plaintiffs exclusive right under Copyright Act to deal in any sound recording composed or made by defendants - Original Application has been filed by plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction restraining defendants from communicating with plaintiffs dealers suppliers or customers in a manner adverse to plaintiff companies reputation and in particular from purporting to question plaintiffs right to exploit works composed or claim conflicting rights – Held, Where copyright in any work has been infringed owner of copyright shall except as otherwise provided by this Act be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction damages accounts as are or may be conferred by law for infringement of a right - In view Section 55 of Copyright Act court of opinion that plaintiff is entitled to claim both reliefs viz. damages and injunction – Therefore submission made by counsel for fourth defendant in this regard cannot be accepted - For foregoing reasons Court find that there is a prima facie case in favor of plaintiff – Injunction already granted by this court vide is made absolute - Similarly Application is also allowed as prayed for - With regard to rejection of plaint it is submission of counsel for second defendant that sound recording and musical works are two difference rights and two rights are operating in two different areas - Present suit is filed based on claim that plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of right in respect of musical works sound recording contained in films as well as independent artistic composer - In light of Section 2(d)(v) of Copyright Act claim of plaintiff is nullified - Therefore he has no cause of action at all as against second defendant since second defendant company had obtained right from producers of respective films - Second respondent had over agreements with different producers for various films - Said copyright agreements give second defendant exclusive right to market and exploit sound recordings of respective films - Copyright over schedule film songs or sound tracks only vest with producer and not to music director - Plaintiff has no cause of action to file a suit against second defendant – But counsel for plaintiff denies contentions of learned counsel for second defendant stating that by resorting to letter sent by second defendant to plaintiff second respondent has paid royalty to him in respect of sound recording right - Since second defendant has raised issue belatedly submission made by counsel for second defendant will not serve as a ground for rejection of plaint – Application are allowed
Heard Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant (plaintiff) in A.No.7701/2014 and O.A.Nos.760 to 762 of 2014, Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant (second defendant) in A.No.6795/2014, Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the fourth defendant and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel for the fifth defendant.
2. Applicant in A.No.7701, 760 to 762 of 2014 is the plaintiff in C.S.No.625 of 2011 and the respondents are the defendants 1 to 5 in the Suit. The applicant in Application No.6795 of 2014 is the second defendant in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their rankings in the suit.
3. Application No.7701 of 2014 has been filed under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S. rules read with Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C., to grant leave to the applicant/plaintiff to file a separate suit, for the reliefs reserved by the applicant/plaintiff.
4. Original Application No.760 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from violating the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule mentioned films, in any way, particularly by entering into or attempting to enter into or after entering into, performing or assisting in the performance of, any agreement with any third party of the suit schedule mentioned films.
5. Original Application No.761 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants its agents, officers, servants, representatives, franchise and all others in any capacity, acting for or on behalf of the defendants, from manufacturing, selling, distributing or in any other way infringing the plaintiff's exclusive right under the Copyright Act to deal in any sound recording composed or made by the defendants.
6. Original Application No.762 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from communicating with the plaintiff's dealers, suppliers or customers, in a manner adverse to the plaintiff company's reputation and in particular, from purporting to question the plaintiff's right to exploit the works composed or claim conflicting rights.
7. Application No.6795 of 2014 has been filed by the 2nd defendant seeking to reject the plaint.
8. The brief facts of the case of the applicant/plaintiff as follows:-
8(1) The plaintiff is an Indian film music composer who works predominantly in the South Indian Cinema since late 1970s. He is an instrumentalist, conductor, singer and a songwriter. He has composed more than 4500 songs.
8(2) Though the plaintiff holds right over the works performed by him, he could not allocate the time to exhibit or exploit or distribute or publish the same in a proper manner. The defendants 2 to 4, who are being the Managing Directors of the respective companies and who are in the jobs of promotion of various songs and publication, had approached the plaintiff for exploitation of musical work and sound recording of film songs and they were granted permission for publication of the songs on various mode of transmission with the condition to pay royalty to the plaintiff, apart from initial cost of the assignment. The defendants, being the company formulated for the publication, taking advantage of the plaintiff's innocence, without paying the amount as well as royalties to the plaintiff, are trying to swindle the entire proceeds and profits of the sound recording, by showing some formal account to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff questioned the act of the defendants, the defendants have resorted to legal proceedings with forged and invalid documents, projecting the same as documents for them to use the musical work absolutely, which is against law. In fact, the applicant was never paid any royalty for the works performed by him and in fact, some of the defendants have illegally assigned the right to third parties as if they are holding the valid rights over the assignment.
8(3) The plaintiff is
