Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ, SUNDER MOHAN, J
M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation – Appellant
Versus
M/s.TKP Pictures – Respondent
OSA (CAD) No.56 of 2023|C.M.P.No.12160 of 2023|C.S.No.262 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Harishankar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sivakumar
Plaintiff's ownership of copyrights affirmed; injunction against infringement granted.
Headnote:In this case, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of ownership of copyrights for the film 'MALLU VETTY MINOR' based on an agreement dated 27.11.2004. The sole contesting defendant, respondent No.1, stated they do not have copyrights and are not opposing the suit. The court granted the plaintiff's requests for declarations and injunctions against respondent No.1, TKP Pictures. The appeal was disposed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court grants relief based on lack of objection. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. plaintiff's ownership of copyrights asserted. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
As regards respondents 2 and 3, suit was proceeded with ex parte.
2. Prayers in the suit were as under:
(a) Declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of all the copyrights as set out in the Agreement dated 27.11.2004, in the film titled “MALLU VETTY MINOR”;
(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants or persons acting on their behalf or claiming through them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's copyrights by taking prints or by exploiting any copyrights in the film titled “MALLU VETTY MINOR”;
(c) For costs of the suit; and (d) For such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
3. The only person who was contesting was defendant No.1, who is respondent No.1 before us.
4. Shri. Sivakumar for respondent No.1 states respondent No.1 is not interested and respondent No.1 does not have the copyrights for the film. Shri. Sivakumar states that if the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff, respondent No.1 has no objection.
5. In the circumstances, without going into the details, we grant the prayers (a) and (b). We clarify that the decree granted is only as against respondent No.1, namely TKP Pictures and no one else.
6. Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
