JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order 7 Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., and Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(a)(i). Declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the theatrical, exhibition and exploitation rights in NSC area for Tamil Film, ‘Imaikka Nodigal’ starring Nayanthara, Atharva and others, directed by Ajay Gnanamuthu;

(a)(ii). Grant a Permanent Injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from releasing the film ‘Imaikka Nodigal’, starring Nayanthara, Atharva and others directed by Ajay Gnanamuthu without setting the dues to the plaintiff or in the alternative.

(b). Directing the Defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- along with interest @36% per annum from date of plaint till realization.

(c). Directing the 1st and the 2nd defendant to pay the costs of the suit.)

(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

1. The epicentre of the suit subject is the Tamil cinematographic film titled “IMAIKA NODIGAL”. The said movie was produced by 2nd defendant M/s. Cameo Films. On 07.01.2017, the 2nd defendant entered into a Royalty Minimum Guarantee Agreement with the first defendant granting commercial and theatrical exhibition copyrights of the said movie for the entire Tamil Nadu, Chittor and Pondicherry, for perpetual period. Also entered into Minimum Guarantee Agreement for entire worldwide right of exploitation of the film including the dubbing right. In turn, the first defendant on 03.03.2017 assigned to the plaintiff the theatrical exploitation right to distribute, exhibit and exploit the said film in respect of North Arcot, South Arcot and Chengalpet (shortly ‘NSC’, as called by the film industries) for a consideration of Rs.4,25,00,000/-. The first defendant received Rs.4,00,00,000/- and agreed for the balance Rs.25,00,000/- lakhs to be paid on the eve of the movie release.

2. On the eve of the movie release, the plaintiff had resorted to this suit for declaration and injunction on the premise that, the first defendant, after assigning the theatrical exploitation rights for the ‘NSC’ area and received advance of Rs.4,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff with a promise that, the movie will be made ready and censored for release before 30.04.2017, failed to get the movie made ready by the time promised. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred a complaint before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Chennai on 05.03.2018 against the first defendant for return of the money advanced with interest. No settlement arrived between the parties before the MSE council.

3. After assigned the copyrights for theatrical exploitation in ‘NSC’ area in favour of the plaintiff through the first defendant, the producer of the film (second defendant) advertised that, the film will be released during the month of August 2018 without informing the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff apprehending that, if the film is released worldwide except NSC area, will be put to severe loss, issued cease and desist notice to the defendants on 07.08.2018 not to release the film without delivering the prints to the plaintiff for theatrical exploitation in NSC area. The second defendant, on receipt of the legal notice, filed caveat in High Court anticipating suit and also replied through his counsel on 11.08.2018, wherein it was informed that the agreement dated 07.01.2017 entered between the first defendant (distributor) and the second defendant (producer) was a Minimum Guarantee Agreement for a consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/- payable as per the schedule. The time was essence of the contract and in case of delay or default in payment, the second defendant reserved the right to terminate the agreement and refund the advance received from the first defendant soon after the movie release. When the first defendant was not able to pay the considerations as per schedule, the parties i.e., fir