Madras High Court
A.S.Saleem vs Rafa International on 28 October, 2021
C.S.No.644 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.644 of 2000
A.S.Saleem ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.Rafa International
rep. by its Proprietor
P.M.Abdul Latheef
23-A, North Boag Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2.Asianet Communications Ltd.,
rep. by its Director Programming
Prem Menon
No.1-C, Apex Plaza
3, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.Swetha Films
Rep. by its Proprietor
E.A.Unikrishnan
Guruvayoor Road
Punkunnam, Trissur
Kerala - 680 002.
... Defendants
Page No.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.644 of 2000
Plaint filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957
read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a judgment and decree:
a) for a relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the
absolute copy right owner in respect of Satellite rights for Terrestrial
Television and Satellite Television Broadcast, including the rights in
respect of Direct to Home (Direct Satellite), DD-4 (Moview Club) and
for communication to the public through Television Broadcast in respect
of the suit Malayalam picture “Hitler Brothers” starring Babu Antony,
Premkumar, Jagathy Srikumar and others, directed by Santhya Mohan,
telecasting the suit picture for the territory of the entire world;
b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their
agents, men, servants or anybody operating under them from telecasting
or in any manner dealing with the suit picture “Hitler Brothers” starring
Babu Antony, Premkumar, Jagathy Srikumar and others, directed by
Santhya Mohan and
c) for costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.V.V.Giridhar
For Defendants : Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan for D2
********
Page No.2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.644 of 2000
JUDGMENT
The suit is one for injunction restraining the defendants from
infringing the copyright of the plaintiff, which qualifies as a commercial
dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015. The jurisdiction is thus determined and this Commercial
Division takes cognizance of the suit.
2. The prayer in the suit is one for declaration that the
plaintiff is entitled to the copyright and for consequential injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's rights.
There is no prayer for either accounting or damages. Even according to
the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to the copyright of the movie for
15 and half years from the date of the agreement i.e., 06.03.1997. The
period of 15 and half years is over and nothing survives in the suit.
Page No.3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.644 of 2000
Page No.4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.644 of 2000
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
3. Hence, this suit is dismissed as having become
infructuous. No costs.
28.10.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Non-Speaking order
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
28.10.2021
dsa
C.S.No.644 of 2000
Page No.5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
