O.A. No.910 of 2023 and ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

Vijay Milton ... Applicant /

Plaintiff vs.

1. GOS Entertainment Private Ltd and another ... Respondents /

Defendants - - - - -

The suit has been filed for a bare injunction to restrain the respondents / defendants from releasing the web series by name “GOLI SODA – THE RISING”, hereinafter referred to as the subject web series. The plaintiff claims to be the copyright holder of the subject web series. The plaintiff claims to be the Director and Writer of the subject web series. According to the plaintiff, he has completed 11 episodes of the web series but despite the same, the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant has arbitrarily and illegally terminated his services without payment of his entire remuneration. Pursuant to the said termination which according to the plaintiff is illegal, the present suit has been filed for a bare injunction to restrain the respondents / defendants from releasing the subject web series.

2. The 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant is a Company which has entered into a contract with the plaintiff, though the same is an unstamped agreement. The 2^nd respondent / 2^nd defendant, an OTT platform has engaged the services of the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant for the production of the subject web series.

3. However, according to the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant, the plaintiff has committed breach of contract on account of the following :-

a) Refusing to sign the agreements with the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant despite agreeing to the terms and conditions;

b) Not abiding by the shooting schedule;

c) Seeking for increase in consideration arbitrarily;

d) Misrepresented to the 1^st respondent that he is vested with the copyright for the web series “GOLI SODA –

THE RISING”;

e) Technical errors committed by the plaintiff in the completion of the episodes for the subject web series.

4. The aforesaid contentions of the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant has been disputed by the applicant / plaintiff, who would state as follows :-

a) The copyright is vested exclusively with the plaintiff;

b) There is no valid assignment of copyright in favour of the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant as per Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957;

c) The plaintiff has not been engaged on work on hire basis by the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant and d) Breach of contract has been committed only by the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant.

5. Heard Mr.Vijayan Subramanian, learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff; Ms.R.Sahana, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent /1^st defendant and Mr.P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Nandini Murali, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent / 2^nd defendant.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the plaint and relying upon the same, he would submit that the agreements relied upon by the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant are unstamped agreements and therefore, they are inadmissible in evidence. According to him, the plaintiff never entered into a stamped agreement with the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff has relied upon Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and would submit that being unstamped agreements, which the 1^st respondent /1^st defendant relies upon, the same is not admissible in evidence.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff also drew the attention of this Court to the stamped agreements sent by the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant subsequently to the applicant / plaintiff, which were not signed by the applicant / plaintiff but has been signed only by the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant. He would submit that it goes to show that the plaintiff never agreed to the terms and conditions of the Unsigned Writer Agreement, dated 01.09.2021, Unsigned Director Agreement, dated 28.01.2022 and Unsigned Deed of Agreement, dated

03.01.2022.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff also drew the attention of