JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

I.A. 11030/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiff)

1. This judgment will dispose of the present application seeking interim injunction against the Defendants and all others acting on their behalf from making, producing, distributing, broadcasting, communicating to the public, adapting, telecasting, exhibiting in theatres, and/or on television and/or online platforms (including any ‘OTT platform’ or other streaming platform) the impugned film titled “Shamshera”, or any part(s) thereof, or any other similar work amounting to infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright in his copyrighted script titled ‘Kabu na chhadein Khet’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KNCK’).

2. Facts to the extent relevant for the present application are that in or around 2006, Plaintiff conceived the idea/concept of a work, which he set out in writing and is stated to be a fictionalised period drama set around the 18th Century. In the year 2008, KNCK, the literary work was manifested/ condensed into a short cinematography film having a runtime of 10 minutes, written and directed by the Plaintiff, wherein the story created by the Plaintiff was set in the 19th Century. In October, 2008, the film was screened at the Spinning Wheel Film Festival, Toronto under title KNCK and the voice over was done by renowned actor Late Shri Om Puri. Plaintiff continued to further flesh out the work and wrote a full-fledged story/script/screenplay running into 40 pages. On 11.05.2009, the concept work was registered with “The Film Writer’s Association”.

3. Plaintiff asserts that looking out for an appropriate opportunity to pitch his script to a large production house, on 03.02.2016 he approached Defendant No. 5, who was the then Creative Head of Defendant No. 2, so that his work KNCK could be made into a big budget cinematograph film and communicated the main aspects of his work, including that the story was a tale of revenge, oppression, enslavement and freedom involving a small village’s rebellion against a mighty foreign invader. Defendant No. 5 responded to the email vide his email dated 04.02.2016 and expressed interest in KNCK and asked the Plaintiff to submit a synopsis and screenplay along with details of Plaintiff’s professional background. Defendant No. 5 also stated that Plaintiff should sign a document which Defendant No. 2’s legal team would forward in line with their standard procedure, following which Plaintiff’s material would be read. It later turned out that the document was a Non-Disclosure Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDA’). Defendant No. 5 communicated that a meeting could be set up thereafter, once Defendant No. 2 decided to consider working on KNCK. Subsequently, correspondences were exchanged between Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 5.

4. It is further averred that by email dated 04.02.2016 Plaintiff received a draft NDA from Defendant No. 2’s team seeking certain particulars from the Plaintiff to finalise the Agreement. Plaintiff re-worked and further fleshed out the script/screenplay and also populated/printed and signed the NDA. By an email dated 08.02.2016, Plaintiff shared the required particulars with Defendants No. 2 and 5 along with a copy of the signed NDA and by another email dated 03.02.2016 shared the synopsis of KNCK. Responding thereto, Defendant No. 5 by an email dated 23.02.2016, wrote to the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2’s team had read the synopsis and requested for sharing the script/screenplay. Promptly the Plaintiff shared an attachment of the updated screenplay/script with Defendants No. 2 and 5 by email dated 27.02.2016. By email dated 04.03.2016, Defendant No. 5 not only acknowledged reading of the screenplay but also stated that he was interested and suggested next steps including asking the Plaintiff to develop the work further and share a complete script with dialogues to see how it plays out clearly. Plaintiff shared a further re-worked script/screenplay on 12.05.2016 and sig