Madras High Court
Manickam Narayanan vs M/S.Raj Television Network ... on 20 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20.04.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Civil Suit (Comm. Div) No.103 of 2021 &
A.Nos.1674 & 1748 of 2021
Manickam Narayanan,
Proprietor,
M/s.7th Channel Communications
having office at No.66,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai-600 004. ... Plaintiff
vs.
1. M/s.Raj Television Network Limited (Raj TV)
represented by its Managing Director,
having registered office at No.32, Poes Road,
2nd Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
2. M.Raajendhran
Managing Director,
M/s.Raj Television Network Limited (Raj TV)
having registered office at No.32, Poes Road, 2nd Street,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
3. Vasanth & Co Media Network Pvt. Ltd. (Vasanth TV)
rep. by its Managing Director (Vasanth TV)
No.27, 37 Railway Border, 1st Kaveri Nagar,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
4. Mr.Vinoth Kumar,
Managing Director
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vasanth & Co Media Network Pvt. Ltd (Vasanth TV)
having registered office at
No.27, 37 Railway Border, 1st Kaveri Nagar,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. ... Defendants
Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side
Rules read with Section 2(1)(C)XVII R/w.1st Proviso of Section 7 of
Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Courts Commercial Division
and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of
2016) r/w. Section 13, 55 & 62 of the Copyrights Act & Order VII Rule 1
of C.P.C. prays for a judgment and decree against defendants (a)
granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men,
servants, agents and any persons claiming under them from infringing,
exhibiting or exploiting the broadcast Cinematograph Film
“AARAVALLI” or any part thereof through satellite Television
Broadcast to direct home broadcast, direct satellite service in all forms
and formats through cable/via cable TV, local delivery system, MMDS,
Paper View, Seabrone, all modes of public/private transportation, public
service broadcasting, private communications/broadcast, wire, wireless,
2D & 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions
which may be in existence now or invested in future or through any other
forms, means and modes and any forms of communication like signs,
signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission
of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be
received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the
medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions shall be constructed accordingly or any other stems without
restriction of geographical area in Raj Tv (1st Defendant herein) or any
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other Tv Channel owned and run by the 1st Defendant; (b) granting a
permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from broadcasting,
telecasting, displaying or featuring said Cinematograph film
“AARAVALLI” without the consent of the Plaintiff.:(c) direct the 1 st
Defendant to render true and proper accounts of profit in respect of its
infringing, telecasting and exploiting of the said Cinematograph Film.;(d)
to pay sum of Rs.12,00,000/- for exploiting the said Cinematograph Film
thereby causing loss to the plaintiff and (e) directing the 1st Defendant to
pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Kaushik N.Sharma
for M/s.KNS Law Chambers
For Defendants : M/s.K.Harishankar for D1
M/s.Manoj Sreevatsan
for D3&D4
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed seeking injunctive relief, rendition of accounts
and damages in respect of alleged infringement in the copyright over the
cinematographic film 'AARAVALLI'.
2. Both the first defendant, separately, and the second and third
defendants, jointly, filed applications under Order XIII A of the Civil
Procedure Code seeking a summary judgment. The said applications are
filed on a common basis. In specific, the applicants assert that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
admitted position is that the movie 'AARAVALLI' was released in the
year 1957. As per Section 26 of the Copyright Act 1957, the copyright in
a cinematographic film subsists for a period of 60 years commencing
from the start of the calendar year following the year in which the work is
published. Consequently, it is asserted that the copyright in the movie
concerned subsisted only until the year 2018. As a corollary, the
respective applicant asserts that there is no real prospect of the plaintiff
succeeding on the suit claim. The defendant is unable to controvert the
assertion of the respective applicant.
3. On examining Section 26 of the Copyright Act 1957, the
assertion of the respective applicant that the term of the copyright in a
cinematographic film is for a period of 60 years beginning from the
calendar year following the year in which the film was released is liable
to be accepted. Given the admitted factual position that the film was
released in the year 1957, the term of copyright should be computed from
01.01.1958. On such basis, the term of copyright expired on 31.12.2017.
As a consequence, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership over the
copyright. The basis of the suit is the alleged ownership of the copyright
in the relevant cinematographic film by the plaintiff. Once the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
substratum collapses, the plaintiff has no real prospect of successfully
prosecuting the suit. Under Order XIII A, an application for summary
judgment is to be tested on two grounds, namely, whether the plaintiff
has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim and whether there is any
other compelling reason to direct parties to adduce oral evidence. In this
case, the requirements of Rule 3 of Order XIII A are fully satisfied.
Consequently, the respective applicant is entitled to succeed and the
applications are allowed accordingly.
4. Therefore, C.S.(Comm.Div) No.103 of 2021 is disposed of
summarily by dismissing the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff
does not have a subsisting copyright and is, therefore, not entitled to any
of the reliefs prayed for. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no
order as to costs.
20.04.2022
kal (½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
kal
Civil Suit (Comm. Div) No.103 of 2021 &
A.Nos.1674 & 1748 of 2021
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
