Madras High Court
Mr.K.Loganathan vs S.S. Chakkrawarthy on 9 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No. 344 of 2005
and
A.Nos.414 & 415 of 2005
Mr.K.Loganathan ... Plaintiff
Vs.
S.S. Chakkrawarthy,
Proprietor NIC Arts,
No.6, Raman Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ... Defendant
Prayer:
Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S.Rules read with
Sections 55 & 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, (a) granting a permanent
injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and all persons
claiming under or through him from infringing the plaintiff's limited
copyright, namely, audio rights as defined in schedule B, in and over the
Tamil Cinematograph Film titled "GOD FATHER", described fully in
Schedule A, either by exercising such rights or by causing the exercise of
such rights or by assigning such rights or by granting license in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
such rights to any third party;
(b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his
agents, servants and all persons claiming under or through him from
releasing or causing the release of the Tamil Cinematograph Film titled
"GOD FATHER" described fully in schedule A anywhere without first
delivering to the plaintiff the Digital Audio Track of the songs and music
portions comprised in the said film together with still photographs and
publicity materials of the said film at least 45 days before such release;
(c) directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the
plaintiff.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Srinivasan
For M/s. Rugan & Arya
For Defendant : No Appearance
-----
JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Copy Right
Act, 1957, seeking judgment and decree against the defendant restraining
them from infringing the plaintiff's limited copyright namely Audio
Rights over the Tamil Cinematograph Film titled "GOD FATHER" and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
for consequential reliefs.
2. Since the issues raised relate to assertion of an intellectual
property right, the Commerical Division of this Court will have
jurisdiction to examine the issues raised under Section 2(1)(c) (xvii) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. There is no indication of the suit summons having been served.
However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that Joint
Memorandum of Compromise had been entered into between the parties
on 06.03.2006 itself.
4. In view of the said facts, nothing survives for further
consideration in the present suit. Accordingly, the Civil Suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Applications are closed.
09.03.2021
msm
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking order : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
msm
C.S.No. 344 of 2005
and
A.Nos.414 & 415 of 2005
09.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
