Madras High Court
M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd vs M/S.Ushakiron Movies on 1 July, 2021
C.S.No.103 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.103 of 2014
and
O.A.No.130 of 2014
M/s.Sun TV Network Ltd.
Rep by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.M.Jothi Basu,
Murasoli Maran Towers,
73 MRC Nagar Main Road,
MRC Nagar, Chennai – 28. ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.M/s.Ushakiron Movies
Represented by its Proprietor,
Sri Ramoji Rao,
Ramoji Film City, Anajpur Village,
Hayathnagar Mandal,
Renga Reddy District,
Andhra Pradesh – 501 512.
2.ETV Network,
A Unit of M/s.Ushodhaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,
Sri Ramoji Rao,
Ramoji Film City, Anajpur Village,
Hayathnagar Mandal,
Renga Reddy District,
Andhra Pradesh – 501 512.
Page No.1/7
C.S.No.103 of 2014
3.M/s.Sree Lakshmi Prasanna Pictures,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mohan Babu,
No.6, Film Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 034. ... Defendants
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read
with Section 55 and 62 of the Copy Rights Act and Order VII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a judgment and decree for:
a) Declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive copyright
holder of Schedule Mentioned Telugu Motion Colour Pictures for
broadcasting the said films through any Satellite System (India or
Foreign), World Satellite Rights, Satellite broadcasting Service, Satellite
Television Broadcasting Service, satellite Radio Broadcasting, Public
Service Broadcasting, Private Communication/ Broadcast, Cable
Television Service, Terrestrial Digital Service/ broadcasting, Cable
Television Service, Station Doordarshan, Direct to Home Service,
Airborne Rights, Seaborne Rights, Pay TV Rights, VCD, DVD, internet,
Audio, Video, local delivery service, MMDS, cable, wire, wireless or any
other systems or media without restriction of geographical area;
b) Consequential permanent injunction restraining 1st and 2nd
defendants, their men, representatives, agents and anybody on behalf of
the defendants from in anyway exhibiting or exploiting the Schedule
Mentioned Telugu Motion Colour Pictures through any Satellite System
(India or Foreign), World Satellite Rights, Satellite broadcasting Service,
Page No.2/7
C.S.No.103 of 2014
Satellite Television Broadcasting Service, Satellite Radio Broadcasting,
Public Service Broadcasting, Private Communication/ Broadcast,
Terrestrial broadcasting Service, Terrestrial Digital Service/
broadcasting, Cable Television Service, Station Doordarshan, Direct to
Home Service, Airborne Rights, Seaborne Rights, Pay TV Rights, VCD,
DVD, internet, Audio, Video, local delivery service, MMDS, cable, wire,
wireless or any other systems or media without restriction of
geographical area and
c) for costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mrs.M.Sneha
for Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakantan
For Defendants : Mr.N.Nithianandam for D1 and D2
Mr.K.Ravindranath for D3
********
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff claims copyright to the suit movies under the
assignment dated 20.12.2003.
2. The claim of the plaintiff is opposed by the 1st defendant on the
ground that the 3rd defendant who is the Producer of the Movies had
assigned the rights to the 1st defendant even on 22.12.1993 and therefore
the 3rd defendant did not have any right to assign the movies again on
Page No.3/7
C.S.No.103 of 2014
20.12.2003.
3. Even in the plaint, the plaintiff would plead that in view of
Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the assignment would be valid
only for a period of 5 years, since the Deed of Assignment executed by
the 3rd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant does not specify a specific
period of assignment.
4. It is now brought to my notice that Sub-Section 5 of Section 19
of the Copyright Act, 1957 was introduced by way of an amendment by
Act 38 of 1994 with effect from 10.05.1995. Sub-Section 7 of Section 19
makes it clear that nothing contained under Sub-Section 5 shall apply to
assignments made before the coming into force of the Copyright
(Amendment) Act, 1994.
5. It is therefore clear that the prohibition or the limitation
contained under Sub-Section 5 of Section 19 will not apply to the
assignment made by the 3rd defendant to the 1st defendant on 22.12.1993.
Page No.4/7
C.S.No.103 of 2014
Therefore, the second assignment by the 3rd defendant in favour of the
plaintiff will not give right to the plaintiff to claim copyrights over the
movies in question.
6. Hence, the suit fails and it is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of order
XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. This dismissal will not however affect the rights of the
plaintiff that may be available to the plaintiff as against the 3 rd defendant/
Producer of the movies. In view of the dismissal of the suit, the
connected Original Application is closed.
01.07.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Speaking order
Page No.5/7
C.S.No.103 of 2014
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil
01.07.2021
dsa
Page No.6/7
C.S.No.103 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.S.No.103 of 2014
01.07.2021
Page No.7/7
