Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, J.
Sun TV Network Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Prabhudeva Studios Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
O.A. Nos. 849 of 2017 and 139 of 2018 in C.S. No. 684 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2018
For the Appellant :M. Sneha, Advocate
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XV-A – Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 – Order of Injunction – Sole Plaintiff in the main Suit is the lone Applicant in O.A. – Defendants 1 & 2 in the main Suit are Respondents 1 & 2 respectively in O.A. has been taken out by Second Defendant in the main Suit arraying Plaintiff in the main Suit and First Defendant in the main Suit as Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively – Parties in these two Applications are referred to by their respective ranks in the main Suit for the sake of convenience and clarity. – Held, It is not in dispute before me that Second Defendant is an established broadcaster – Therefore, filing of accounts will suffice, as quantified Damages can always be recovered by Plaintiff if the Plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the Suit. Plaintiff is also at liberty to seek case management hearing under Order XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016) for expediting and accelerating disposal of the Suit in which pleadings have been completed by Second Defendant, besides completion of admission and denial of documents also. – It is also open to the Plaintiff to take out Applications for impleading any other individual or entity, who has become proper or necessary party in the aforesaid chain of assignment. – It is made clear that all the views expressed in this Order are for the limited purpose of disposal of these two Interlocutory Applications and the main Suit will be tried and decided uninfluenced by anything that may have been said in this Order. – Owing to all that have been set out supra, the vacate Injunction Application i.e., O.A. is allowed, Interim Injunction granted by this Court is vacated and Interlocutory Injunction Application i.e., O.A. is dismissed – Order Accordingly
M. Sundar, J.
1. This Common Order will dispose of both these Applications, i.e., O.A. Nos. 849 of 2017 & 139 of 2018. To be noted, O.A. No. 849 of 2017 has been taken out by the Plaintiff seeking an Ad-Interim Injunction pending disposal of the main Suit and an ex parte Interim Order was granted (at the time of inception of the Suit) on 4.9.2017. O.A. No. 139 of 2018 has been taken out by the Second Defendant in the main Suit with a prayer to vacate the aforesaid ex parte Ad-Interim Order of Injunction dated 4.9.2017.
2. Further to be noted, the sole Plaintiff in the main Suit is the lone Applicant in O.A. No. 849 of 2017. Defendants 1 & 2 in the main Suit are Respondents 1 & 2 respectively in O.A. No. 849 of 2017. O.A. No. 139 of 2018 has been taken out by Second Defendant in the main Suit arraying Plaintiff in the main Suit and First Defendant in the main Suit as Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. The parties in these two Applications are referred to by their respective ranks in the main Suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The nucleus of the Suit and obviously these two Applications is a Tamil feature film titled "Bogan", starring Jayam Ravi, Arwindswamy, Hansika Motwani and others, which is hereinafter referred to as 'Suit film' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. There is no dispute between parties at lis that Defendant No. 1, i.e., Prabhudeva Studios Private Limited is the producer of the Suit film.
4. Before proceeding further, it is deemed relevant to record the obtaining position that Defendant No. 1 has been duly served, but has not chosen to enter appearance and contest the Suit or these Applications. Ms. M. Sneha, learned Counsel on record for Plaintiff and Mr. T. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Murali, Counsel on record for the Second Defendant were before this Commercial Division and I have heard both learned Counsel.
5. The case of the Plaintiff is that they have got an assignment of exclusive Satellite Television Broadcast rights from the First Defendant (producer of the Suit film) vide an assignment Agreement dated 29.7.2016 for a valuable consideration. To be noted, the Plaintiff, according to Plaint averments, is a Television Network and runs several Television Channels. In other words, as is evident from the submissions made before me, Plaintiff is a broadcaster. As already set out supra, the First Defendant is the producer of the Suit film. To be noted, the Second Defendant is also a broadcaster and it runs a Malayalam channel in the name and style 'Kairali TV'. The TV
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that they having acquired the Suit film for valuable consideration, had telecast the same on 15.8.2017 which is a National holiday on account of independence day with the intention of deriving maximum income from Advertisements. To be noted, such telecast made by the Plaintiff was in it's Tamil television channel, Sun TV. It is the case of the Plaintiff that after such telecast, while they were in the process of telecasting promos for telecasting the Suit film in their Malayalam channel (Surya TV) on 2.9.2017 in view of Onam festival, the Second Defendant telecast the Malayalam dubbed version of the Suit film on 1.9.2017 in its Malayalam channel 'Kairali TV'.
7. Plaintiff filed the instant Suit on 4.9.2017 complaining that they are aggrieved by such telecast of Malayalam dubbed version of the Suit film by Second Defendant in their Malayalam channel 'Kairali TV' on 1.9.2017. The Suit is predicated on the ground that the Second Defendant has made the aforesaid alleged offending telecast on 1.9.2017 without any rights whatsoever, violating Plaintiff's Copyright in the Suit film. It is further averred by Plaintiff that this has caused revenue loss to the Plaintiff. In this Suit, Permanent Injunction restraining the Second Defendant from exploiting Television Broadcasting rights in the Suit film and damages for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000 have been claimed. To be no
