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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M/S.PEPPERS MEDIA P LTD – Appellant
Versus
M/S.RAJ TELEVISION NETWORK LTD – Respondent
CRL OP 24201/2016



Advocates:
['M/S M ARUNACHALAM', '', 'V BALASUBRAMANI', 'M/S P K SHRINIVASAN', '', 'INDEX TO TYPE SET FILED', 'K VENKATESHWARAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.03.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

Crl.O.P.No.24201 of 2016

and Crl.M.P.No.11531 of 2016

1.M/s.Peppers Media P LTD,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

First Floor, No.5 First Street,

Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

2. Nachiappan

Director M/s.Peppers Media P LTD

First Floor, No.5 First Street

Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

3. Deepa Nachiappan

Director M/s.Peppers Media P LTD

First Floor, No.5 First Street

Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

... Petitioners/Accused

Vs.

M/s. Raj Television Network Ltd.,

Rep by its Admin Manager Mr.Suresh

No.32 Poes Road, 2nd Street,

Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating

to the C.C.No.2195 of 2016 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Arunachalam

For Respondent

: Mr.K.Venkateshwaran

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for

the records relating to C.C.No.2195 of 2016, on the file of the

XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the

same.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. C.C.No.2195 of 2016 was filed by the respondent under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 51, 63, 66

and 69 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

3. The allegations made in the complaint, in brief, are as

follows:

The respondent is a leading Television Network in Tamil

Nadu. It entered into an assignment agreement dated 31.03.1999

with Mr.Alagappan Proprietor of M/s.Manikandan Finance,

exclusive copyright holder of the cinematography of Tamil film

'Kalaignan' for assignment of the satellite TV broadcast rights,

for a valid consideration of Rs.17,01,000/- for a perpetual

period right from the date of agreement.

But the

petitioners/accused, namely, the first petitioner is running a

Television in the name and style of M/s.Peppers Media P LTD,

represented by its Directors, the second and third petitioners,

without any right, telecasted the movie namely, Kalaignan on

28.02.2016 at 3.25 p.m. The respondent recorded the same. The

CD is produced as an exhibit. By telecasting the movie

'Kalaignan' the petitioners used the respondent's copy rights.

It is further alleged that the petitioners after knowing fully

well that they did not have any right over the said movie and

aware of the fact that the respondent is the execusive and only

copy right holder of the movie had intentionally telecasted the

movie in their channel and caused a huge loss to the respondent.

Therefore this complaint.

4. This case was taken cognizance by the learned Judge for

the offences under Sections Sections 51, 63, 66 and 69 of the

Copy Right Act, 1957. Challenging the said complaint, this

quash petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

petitioners were granted the assignment rights for telecasting

the movie 'Kalaignan' through a written agreement dated

26.10.2012. The right was assigned by one Mr.B.Saravanan.

Mr.B.Saravanan got the copy rights through an agreement dated

12.06.2004 from Mr.K.Surathi, who in turn got the rights through

an agreement dated 30.12.1994 from M/s.Global Enterprises. In

response to a call from the respondent Managing Director,

petitioners sent an email dated 29.02.2016 alleging the rights

on the basis of the aforesaid agreement and clarified the right

of telecasting the movie 'Kalaignan' in the Television. This e-

mail was not responded by the respondent. The petitioners were

not aware of any copy rights or other rights in favour of the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for

the offence of infringment

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