SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2020

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, J
Trishul Media Entertainment – Appellant
Versus
Retrophiles Private Limited – Respondent
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 15925 OF 2023 | COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO.15922 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Abinav Chandrachud, Mr. Pranit Kulkarni, Mr. Gandhar Raikar
For the Respondents: Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Varun Nathani, Mr. Munaf Virjee, Mr. Rushabh Parekh, Mr. Akash Agarwal, Ms. Surekha Srinivasan, Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Megha Chandra, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Deepak Deshmukh, Mr. Suyog Mukherjee, Ms. Tarini Kulkarni

A juristic entity cannot claim moral rights under the Copyright Act regarding employee contributions as authors; such claims cannot be represented absent commonality of interest with the employees.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 51 and Section 57 - Interim relief sought by Plaintiff claiming credit for employees' contributions in the film "Adipurush" - Court noted that Plaintiff was given credit in character assets, addressing grievances - Various Interim Applications filed seeking credit for multiple individuals, and amendments to include additional parties - Claims for credit under contract warranted examination of Plaintiff's potential breaches - Defendants contended lack of credit entitlement, asserting material breaches during service provision - Court ultimately held that Section 57 rights do not extend to juristic entities like the Plaintiff for employees' rights regarding authorship - Reliefs sought were primarily personal to the Plaintiff and could not be extended in representative capacity for employees. (Paras 1, 15, 57, 68, 70)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed an Interim Application after being given credit in the film "Adipurush". Various claims were sought, including credit for 147 employees integral to the production. There were allegations of breach from both parties concerning contract obligations.

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff remained in material breach regarding the agreement, and the relief sought for employee credit could not be granted under Section 57 for a juristic body. The existing contractual rights could not be leveraged as representative rights without showing common interests with employees.

Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's claims for credit could be extended to employees, and if Plaintiff could sue in a representative capacity under Section 8 of CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that there is no commonality of interest between the Plaintiff and its employees as statutory rights are not transferrable to juristic entities. Thus, the Plaintiff could not convert personal claims into a representative action under the CPC.

Result: Interim Applications disposed, and primary claims denied.

Table of Content
1. interim application details and initial pleadings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. controversy over obligations and claims under the vfx agreement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. representative capacities in legal actions. (Para 13 , 14)
4. nature of authorship and moral rights under copyright. (Para 19 , 20)
5. arguments against the premise of credit claims. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. criteria for representative suits under order 8, cpc. (Para 39 , 41)
7. admissions and their implications in legal disputes. (Para 60 , 61 , 62)
8. final order on interim applications. (Para 69 , 70)
JUDGMENT :

1. The Interim Application (L) No.15925 of 2023 was filed on 14th June, 2023 and had been moved before this Court on 15th June, 2023. By order dated 15th June, 2023, this Court had noted that the subject film “Adipurush” is being released in the theater on 16th June, 2023. Paragraph 3 of the said order is relevant to produce, which reads as under :

“Mr. Ashish Kamat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant has raised preliminary issue of maintainability of the Suit. He states that the Applicant/Plaintiff has been given credit for character assets in the subject film and has tendered snap shot of the credits which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. It appears from the snap shot that the Plaintiff has been given credit under character assets. Thus, the grievance insofar as the Plaintiff regarding not being given credit in the subject film appears to be addressed.”

The Applicant/Plaintiff in the aforementioned Interim Application had applied for ad-interim relief including inter alia in Prayer Clause ‘a’, as follows :

“That the Plaintiffs/Applicants be given Credit in the film “Adipurush” to all the employees/agents and contract workers who had worked in the project for all the assets, layout, animation, compositing and such other supporting employees as part of the production of the film.”

2. There were other prayers including prayer for restraining the Defendants from releasing “Adipurush” (“subject film”) in theaters or on any OTT Platform or Online or any other film / television series incorporating the works authored by the Plaintiffs, by themselves or their employees or agents without giving due credits to the Plaintiffs or their employees or agents in the said film so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s moral rights in the works contained in Exhibit- A of the Plaint. It is not necessary to refer to the other prayers as on 15th June, 2023 when the aforementioned Interim Application had come up, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff had submitted that at this stage no ad-interim relief is being sought for in respect of the prayers other than giving of credit to the Applicant/Plaintiff. He had submitted that the Applicant/Plaintiff is not intending to prevent the release of the subject film, which was scheduled for release on the next day.

Further, he had submitted that he would press for further ad-interim relief after opportunity was given to the Defendants to file their Affidavit-in-Reply to the Interim Application.

3. Considering that Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited had not been joined though the Company is a co-Producer of the subject film, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud has sought leave to amend the Plaint and Interim Application for joining Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited. Leave was accordingly granted and permission to carry out the amendment was also granted. Further directions were issued for the completion of pleadings i.e. filing of the Affidavit-in-Reply and Rejoinder.

4. It is relevant to note the circumstances in which Paragraph 3 of the said order dated 15th June, 2023 extracted above came to be passed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant on that day had raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the Suit. In view of the subject film releasing the next day, the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants, had stated that the Applicant/Pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top