Bombay High Court
Goldden Plaza vs M/S Eagle Video And Audio And 3 Ors on 28 September, 2012
Bench: S.J. Kathawalla
KPP -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 297 OF 2005
Yasmin Lalani, adult, Bombay, Inhabitant, )
Proprietor of M/s. Golden Plaza, through her CA )
Fazalbhai Lalani, carrying on business at A-11/397 B, )
Naaz Cinema Compound, Lamington Road, )
Mumbai-400 004 )..Plaintiffs
vs.
1. M/s. Eagle Video and Audio,
C/o. M/s. Jorden Electronics, B-6,Suyog Apartments,
)
)
Juhu Versova Link Road, Next to HDFC Bank, )
Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 and at J/12, Jangpura )
Extn. New Delhi-110 014 )
2. M/s. Jorden Electronics, )
B-6,Suyog Apartments, )
Juhu Versova Link Road, Next to HDFC Bank, )
Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 and at J/12, Jangpura )
Extn. New Delhi-110 014 )
3. M/s. Shyam Film Distributors )
7/A Neel Kanth Apartment, Gokuldas Pasta Road, )
Dadar (East), Mumbai-400 018 )
4. M/s. Manhori Chitra, )
730/5, Laxmi Niwas, New More Colony, )
Sambhaji Nagar, Kolhapur. )..Defendants
Mr. Mahesh K. Tiwari, instructed by Mr. R.K. Midha, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. V. Deshpande, instructed by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE: September 28, 2012
KPP -2-
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. This is an action inter alia for infringement of Video Copyright and Cable
TV rights. The Plaintiffs are in the business of acquiring and dealing with Video
Copyrights and Cable TV rights of All India and entire world in respect of the
feature films. They have been doing so for over three decades. The Plaintiffs
have so far acquired the video and cable TV rights in all formats in respect of
approximately 400 feature films and have been dealing with the said rights,
making VCDs and DVDs of the films so acquired in all formats, selling and
marketing them.
2. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are also engaged in the business of acquiring
rights of films from various film producers and other concerned parties and to
make and sell VCDs and DVDs of various feature films. Defendant No.3 are in
the business of acquiring distribution and other rights in respect of the feature
films. According to the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.3 have alleged that they have
acquired the Cable TV and Video TV rights in all formats of two Marathi films
namely (1) Mumbaicha Faujdar and (2) Rajane Wajavla Baja from one M/s.
Manhori Chitra (Producers of the said two films and Defendant No.4 to the
suit). Defendant No. 4 are producers of the above two Marathi films as well as
another film titled "Ghe Bharari". The Plaintiffs have acquired the video
copyrights in all formats and the Cable TV rights among others in respect of the
KPP -3-
three films namely (1) Mumbaicha Faujdar, (2) Rajane Wajavla Baja and (3)
Ghe Bharari by two separate Agreements dated 24 th August, 2000 for a valuable
consideration. Even prior to the execution of the above agreements dated 24 th
August, 2000, the Plaintiffs had by separate agreements dated 11 th January,
1988 acquired the video copyrights in respect of the films (I) Mumbaicha
Faujdar and (2) Rajane Wajavla Baja from Defendant No.4 for a period of ten
years from the date of the said agreements. After the expiry of the agreements,
the Plaintiffs once again acquired the same rights from the said Producers by
way of the said two Agreements both dated 24th August, 2000.
3. In the year 2004, the Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant Nos. 1 and
2 were indulging in committing breach of violation of the Plaintiffs right i.e.
Video Copyrights and Cable TV rights in all formats and Defendant Nos. 3 and 4
are aiding and abetting the unlawful action of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In this
regard, the Plaintiffs have also issued public notices and have served legal
notices, through their Advocates, to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs, therefore,
filed the present suit, inter alia, for infringement of their Video Copyright and
Cable TV rights.
4. The Plaintiffs led the evidence of Mr. Fazal Lalani by filing his affidavit in
lieu of examination-in-chief. The witness confirms the correctness of the
contents of the affidavit. The affidavit, inter alia, reiterated what is stated in the
plaint. Through the evidence, the compilation of documents is tendered in Court
KPP -4-
which is taken on record and marked Exhibit "X" Collectively.
5. There is nothing on record that militates against anything that has been
averred in the plaint and deposed to by the witness.
6. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 despite being represented by Advocates have
neither filed any written statement nor have they cross-examined the Plaintiffs'
witness. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have remained absent. The evidence of the
witness is uncontroverted. The Plaintiffs are not pressing for damages.
7. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a),
(b), ( c), (e) and (i). Costs to be quantified as per rules.
(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)
