Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation, Rep. by its Partner, Ganshyam Hemdev – Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. SaReGaMa India Ltd., Chennai & Others – Defendants
Civil Suit No. 331 of 2014 (Comm.Suits)
Decided On : 07-02-2022
Indian Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 55 and 62 – Civil Procedure code,1908 - Order 1V,VII - Rule 1 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58,113 – Section 22 – Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 - Limitation Act, 1908 - Article 120 - Suit For - Permanent injunction - Whether suit is barred by limitation? - Whether second and third defendants had assigned copyrights in suit pictures in favour of first defendant’s predecessor M/s. Sea Records for a period of 60 years as alleged by first defendant? - Whether first defendant is entitled to exploit rights after a period of 25 years of assignment in favour of its predecessor M/s. Sea Records? - Whether plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of Copyrights in its favour?- Whether agreement entered into between M/s. Sea Records and defendants 2 and 3 were limited to a period of 25 years? - Whether plaintiff could have filed suit after a lapse of 14 years from date on which first legal notice was issued? - Whether second and third defendants could have assigned rights to plaintiff? – Held, 1st defendant was asserting an absolute right in audio copyrights of Schedule Films - Plaintiff is claiming that they immediately reverted back to 2nd and 3rd defendants and at which point of time all earlier communications came to knowledge of plaintiff - Assertion of audio copyright was happening right from year 2000 onwards and even predecessor in title of 1st defendant had asserted absolute right to 2nd and 3rd defendants - Once again 1st defendant asserted absolute right to 2nd and 3rd defendants in year 2005 letter issued by 1st defendant to plaintiff is only a continuation/reiteration of assertion of absolute right over audio copyrights in Schedule Films - Once plaintiff was made aware of all these facts, the plaintiff should have realised that there is a clear and unequivocal threat to their right, which effectively invades or will jeopardise the audio copyrights claimed by the plaintiff in Schedule Films - Right to sue first had arisen in year 2010 itself - so called cause of action pleaded during May 2014, at best is only a successive violation of their rights and it will not help case of plaintiff to bring suit within the period of limitation - In present case, suit for declaration and permanent injunction ought to have been filed within three years from - Admittedly suit has been filed only on which is well beyond period of limitation - Suit dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 r/w Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC., prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:
(a) For a declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyrights viz., the entire audio copyrights in the sound records of the Plaint Schedule mentioned films, in terms of the two agreements dated 17.07.2008 for a perpectual period;
(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, their men, agents, servants or assigns from in any manner infringing the plaintiff’s limited copyrights viz., the entire audio copyrights in the sound records of the Plaint Schedule mentioned films, in terms of two agreements dated 17.07.2008 for a perpectual period
(c) For costs of the suit
(d) For such further or other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.)
1. The present suit has been filed for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in the entire audio copyrights in the sound recordings of the films mentioned in the Plaint Schedule by means of two agreements dated 17.7.2008 and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1stdefendant from in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that they are in the business of exploiting, manufacturing and marketing pre-recorded cassettes-audio and video content digitally and through all mediums. During the course of their business, they entered into an agreement dated 17.7.2008 with the 2nd defendant and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff claims that the entire copyright in the works relating to the entire sound track in the five films owned by the 2nd defendant was assigned in favour of the plaintiff on a perpetual basis. Similarly the plaintiff also entered into an agreement on 17.7.2008 with the 3rd defendant and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff claims that the entire copyright in the works relating to the entire sound track in the two films owned by the 3rd defendant was assigned in favour of the plaintiff on a perpetual basis.
3. The further case of the plaintiff is that they became the sole and absolute owner of all the audio copyrights in the seven films (hereinafter referred to as Schedule Films) and they were exploiting their rights in the audio works immediately after the right was assigned through the above agreements.
4. The plaintiff received a letter dated 6.8.2010 from the 1stdefendant wherein the 1st defendant claimed that they were the sole and absolute owners of the copyright and other related rights in the sound recording of the films Sithara, Seethakoka, Chilaka, Sankarabharanam and Sagarasangamam. Immediately on receipt of this letter, the plaintiff contacted their assignors namely the 2nd and 3rd defendants and sought for a clarification. It is stated that the 2nd and 3rd defendants informed the plaintiff that the audio rights were assigned by them earlier for a period of 25 years to one M/s. Sea Records and the period was over. That apart the 2nd and 3rd defendants also furnished to the plaintiff a letter dated 13.4.2005 which was written by the 2nd and 3rd defendants to the 1st defendant wherein the 1st defendant was informed that the rights assigned in favour of M/s. Sea Records has already expired and hence the 1st defendant does not have any right to further exploit the copyright. The plaintiff claims that they were satisfied with the clarification given by the 2nd and 3rd defendants and hence without giving any reply to the letter dated 6.8.2010, they continued to exploit the audio rights in the Schedule Films.
5. The further case of the plaintiff is that they came to know during April 2014 that the 1st defendant is continuing to sell the audio CDs of the Schedule Films through internet
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
