The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience for obtaining an interlocutory injunction in copyright infringement cases. The judgment also emphasizes the need for valid copyright assignments, the first ownership of copyright, and the maintenance of accounts for the exploitation of rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, C.J.

1. These two appeals arise out of a common final interlocutory order in two actions for infringement of copyright. In the earlier suit, C.S. No. 207 of 2019, instituted by S. Khaja Mohideen, the subject-matter pertains to the musical works in 17 cinematograph films. In the later suit, C.S. No. 596 of 2019, filed by R. Ayubkhan, the claim is on account of the music pertaining to a film by the name of "Citizen".

2. There is a lot of confusion which is created by the incomplete papers executed by the parties and the rather haphazard presentation thereof in the Court. Further, the usual cavalier practice in the film industry or the music trade is also evident from the possible duplication of documents, apparent creation of rights without reference to previous assignments and licence and the like. However, at the end of the day, for a plaintiff to obtain an interlocutory injunction, it must show a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience being in favour of the orders sought.

3. It needs to be clarified at the outset that legal jargons like "prima facie case" and "balance of convenience" need not be expressly mentioned in any interlocutory judgment or whatever is the result of any interim adjudicatory process undertaken, as long as the sense in either case is made out by cogent reasons being indicated in such regard. In other words, by the mere use of the expression "prima facie case" all over an interlocutory order, the order may not be justified; nor will the lack of the use of the expression render the order vulnerable if the essence of a prima facie case is discerned therefrom.

4. The other aspect that needs to be emphasised is that what really counts in the process of adjudication in a system governed by the rule of law is the reasoning which is indicated therein. As is often repeated, reasons are the link between the facts and the conclusion drawn on the facts by applying the relevant law to the prevalent facts. The journey from the bare facts to the hard order cannot be traversed - and, at any rate, is incomplete - without reasons being indicated in support of the order. Reasons reveal what impelled the judicial mind to arrive at the conclusion by applying the relevant law to the facts at hand. Reasoned orders are the sine qua non for any respectable or acceptable system of adjudication.

5. Plaintiff Mohideen instituted the earlier suit in 2019 claiming that he had acquired the copyright in the music pertaining to several films from one S.S. Chakravarthy who carried on business under the name and style of Nic Audio and also as Nic Arts. The plaintiff relies on an agreement of February 18, 2004 by which Nic Audio apparently assigned the musical works in 17 specified films in favour of Meta Audio, a proprietorship concern of the plaintiff. The grant is found in paragraph 2 of the document and provides that the assignee "shall have" the exclusive rights to, inter alia, manufacture, sell and distribute the sound recordings in various forms of the specified music "for entire Indian Territory for perpetual period of 99 years." Paragraph 3 of the agreement reveals a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh.

6. According to the plaintiff, he entered into licence agreements with various parties, including Entertainment Network (India) Limited, a company that apparently owns the popular FM radio channel "Mirchi". In the relevant licence agreement of November 2, 2004, the plaintiff apparently granted licence through another proprietorship firm by name of Bayshore Records. However, the works for which the licence was granted by the said agreement are not apparent from the agreement or from any other document that the plaintiff has produced.

7. The plaintiff has also relied on a further licence agreement executed by him through his Bayshore Records with Malar Publications Limited. Interestingly, though the agreement is dated August, 14 and the stamp paper appears to have been purchased in the year 2006, the year