Madras High Court
R. Ayubkhan vs M/S. Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd on 24 November, 2023
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S. (COMM DIV.) No.402 of 2020
and
O.A. Nos.751 and 752 of 2020
R. Ayubkhan .... Plaintiff
vs.
1. M/s. Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd., *
No.367 & 369,
Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2. M/s.Escape Artists Motion Pictures,
No.69A, Habibullah Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 17. .... Defendants
* (Amended as per order dated
29.03.2021 in A. No.1100 of 2021)
Prayer : Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules read with
Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections
18, 19, 51, 55, 60 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 7 of the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Courts, Commercial Division
and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act. No.4
of 2016) – suit for groundless threat and permanent injunction for the
infringement of copyright to pass judgment and decree in the following
terms :
a) A declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
copyrights specifically set out in the Schedule-B of the Assignment
Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 in the Tamil cinematograph film titled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/26
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”. *
b) A declaration that the threat issued by the 1st defendant through
its counsel vide legal notice dated 20.04.2020 is unjustified and
groundless.
c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
agents, successors-in-business, assigns, representatives or any person
claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the
plaintiff's copyrights in the Tamil cinematograph film titled
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”
d) A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant by
themselves, their servants, agents, successors, assigns or any and /or all
of them from in any manner threatening the plaintiff herein, directly or
indirectly, in any manner by notices, advertisements, circulars, etc.,
regarding the use, production, distribution or commercial exploitation of
the Tamil cinematograph film titled “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR
SANGAM” and thereby interfering and /or harming the business of the
plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
e) Directing that the 1st defendant to pay, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten lakhs only) as damages on account of the unjustified and
groundless threats made by the 1st defendant and for infringing the
plaintiff's copyrights in the Tamil cinematograph film
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”
f) Directing the 1st defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
g) Passing any other or further orders which this Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice.
* Amended as per Order dated 15.12.2022
in A. No.5395 of 2022 and time extended
as per order dated 19.12.2022.
JUDGEMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
This suit has been filed seeking for declaration and permanent
injunction in respect of the Tamil cinematographic film
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”. The plaintiff has also
sought for damages for the alleged copyright infringement.
2. The plaintiff claims to be the copyright holder for the overseas
internet rights in respect of the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR
SANGAM”. He has claimed the said right by virtue of an Assignment
Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 executed by the second defendant in his
favour.
3. Further, it is contended by the plaintiff that they had
approached M/s.Amazon Prime Video, an OTT platform for
broadcasting the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”
internationally excluding India. According to the plaintiff, they were
informed by M/s.Amazon Prime Video that since an objection has been
raised by the first defendant, who also claims to be the copyright holder,
they did not allow the plaintiff to broadcast the film
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM” in their OTT platform.
4. A cease and desist notice, dated 20.04.2020 was sent by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
first defendant to the plaintiff calling upon him not to illegally broadcast
the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM” in any of the
platforms, worldwide.
5. A reply was also sent by the plaintiff to the first defendant on
23.04.2020 denying the contentions of the first defendant in the cease
and desist notice dated 20.04.2020 and reiterating that they have got
exclusive right to broadcast the film internationally, excluding India. In
view of the objection raised by the first defendant and in view of
M/s.Amazon Prime Video's refusal to broadcast the film in their OTT
platform, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for copyright infringement
and for declaration of their copyright in respect of the film
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”, as per the Assignment
Agreement, dated 10.04.2013.
6. However, as seen from the written statement filed by the first
defendant, they claim that the Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013
is a fabricated document. They also claim that they have been granted
exclusive copyright in respect of the film “VARUTHAPADATHA
VALIBAR SANGAM” by the second defendant under an Assignment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
Agreement, dated 01.07.2013. Hence, according to them, the plaintiff
cannot claim copyright over the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR
SANGAM”. It is also their case that they have got exclusive copyright
over the entire world not alone for Satellite Television rights, but also for
other rights including the internet rights.
7. The second defendant has also filed a written statement. The
second defendant admits that they have entered into an Assignment
Agreement with the plaintiff on 10.04.2013 by virtue of which the
plaintiff has filed the present suit. Similarly, the second defendant has
also admitted that they have entered into a separate Assignment
Agreement with the first defendant, which is dated 01.07.2013 by virtue
of which, the first defendant has been granted Satellite Television rights
in respect of the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”.
The second defendant in its written statement has confirmed the
execution of the aforesaid two Assignment Agreements one in favour of
the plaintiff and the other in favour of the first defendant. The second
defendant also reiterates the contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint by
stating that overseas internet rights were granted to the plaintiff and the
Satellite Television rights were granted to the first defendant in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”.
8. Based on the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the following
issues were framed by this Court by its order dated 12.04.2022:-
1. Whether the Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013
between the plaintiff and the second defendant is valid?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive satellite TV rights
under the Assignment Agreement dated 10.04.2013?
3. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in
the Tamil cinematographic film titled
VARUTHAPADAATHA VAALIBAR SANGAM and, if so,
what remedies is the plaintiff entitled to?
4. Whether the notice dated 20.04.2020 from the first defendant
is a groundless threat and, if so, what remedies is the plaintiff
entitled to?
5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of
Amazon Prime Video?
6. Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief?
9. Before the learned Additional Master II, High Court, Madras,
the plaintiff's Manager Mr.G.Murali was examined as a witness (P.W.1)
on behalf of the plaintiff. A proof affidavit was also filed by him on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
behalf of the plaintiff. Through P.W.1, the following documents were
marked as Exhibits on the side of the plaintiff :-
Exhibits Description of the Documents
Ex.P1 Ex.P1 is the original assignment agreement dated 10.04.2013
Ex.P2 Ex.P2 is the photocopy of the lab letter signed, issued by
M/s.Gemini Colour Labs dated 12.04.2013
Ex.P3 Ex.P3 is the photocopy of the assignment of the film by plaintiff
to Mega Movies PTE in Singapore Territory dated 02.09.2013.
Ex.P4 Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the assignment of the Film by the
plaintiff and Lotus Five Star (AV) (M) SDN, BHD for
Malaysian territory dated 03.09.2013
Ex.P5 Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the assignment by the Film agreement
by the plaintiff to Ayngaran International (UK) Ltd. in Europe
and UK territory dated 18.12.2023.
Ex.P6 Ex.P6 is the copy of the cease and desist notice issued by the
plaintiff dated 20.04.2020.
Ex.P7 Ex.P7 is the copy of the reply issued by the plaintiff to the 1st
defendant dated 23.04.2020.
10. The first defendant's counsel also cross examined the plaintiff's
witness (P.W.1). On the side of the first defendant, Mr.G.Rajendran, the
Vice President (Finance) of the first defendant was examined as a witness
(D.W.1). Through D.W.1, the following documents were marked as
Exhibits on the side of the first defendant :-
Exhibits Description of the Documents
Ex.D1 Ex.D1 is the photocopy of Assignment Agreement dated
01.07.2013
Ex.D2 Ex.D2 is the photocopy of the letter dated 01.07.2013
Ex.D3 Ex.D3 is the photocopy of the letter from M/s.Gemini Colour
Laboratory dated 02.07.2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
Exhibits Description of the Documents
Ex.D4 Ex.D4 is the photocopy of the undertaking letter dated
10.07.2013
Ex.D5 Ex.D5 is the photocopy of the letter from 2nd defendant to 1st
defendant dated 29.8.2013.
Ex.D6 Ex.D6 is the photocopy of the letter from 2nd defendant to 1st
defendant dated 03.09.2013.
Ex.D7 Ex.D7 is the photocopy of the letter from 2nd defendant to 1st
defendant dated 05.09.2013
Ex.D8 Ex.D8 is the photocopy of the letter from M/s.Gemini colour Lab
to 1st defendant dated 05.09.2013.
Ex.D9 Ex.D9 is the photocopy of the cheque for an amount of
Rs.2,54,90,000/- drawn by 1st defendant dated 05.09.2013
Ex.D10 Ex.D10 is the original account book of 1st defendant dated
06.09.2013
Ex.D11 Ex.D11 is the office copy of the notice issued by the 1st
defendant dated 20.04.2020
Ex.D12 Ex.D12 is the photocopy of the reply issued by the plaintiff to the
1st defendant dated 23.04.2020.
11. The plaintiff's counsel had also cross examined DW1. Neither
any document was filed nor any witness was examined on the side of the
second defendant.
12. Heard Mr.H.S.Hredai, learned counsel for the plaintiff,
Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first defendant and Mrs.Preethi
S. Arasu, learned counsel for the second defendant.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff :
13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of this
Court to both the Assignment Agreements, one executed in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
plaintiff and the other executed in favour of the first defendant by the
second defendant. At the outset, he would submit that the Assignment
Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 executed by the second defendant in favour
of the plaintiff is prior in point of time to that of the Assignment
Agreement, dated 01.07.2013 entered into between the second defendant
and the first defendant.
14. He drew the attention of this Court to the nature of the
assignment which is disclosed in the Schedule “B” to the Assignment
Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 which has been marked as Ex.P1 and
would submit that the copyright in respect of overseas internet rights has
been exclusively vested with the plaintiff as per the Assignment
Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 (Ex.P1).
15. He would further elaborate by stating that excluding India, all
the overseas rights in respect of the OTT platform is vested exclusively
with the plaintiff.
16. He also drew the attention of this Court to the nature of the
assignment as per the Assignment Agreement, dated 01.07.2013 entered
into between the second defendant and the first defendant (Ex. D1) and
would submit that the said assignment was made by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
defendant only in respect of Satellite Television rights.
17. He also drew the attention of this Court to the Lab letters
issued by the M/s.Gemini Colour Labs in favour of the plaintiff as well as
in favour of the first defendant. After drawing the attention of this Court
to the Lab letters issued by M/s.Gemini Colour Labs, dated 12.04.2013
in favour of the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.P2, he would submit that
it is made clear in the said Lab letter that the plaintiff is having the
absolute copyright in respect of OTT platforms internationally excluding
India.
18. He also drew the attention of this Court to the Lab letters
issued in favour of the first defendant by M/s.Gemini Colour Labs, which
are dated 02.07.2013 and 05.09.2013, which are marked as Exhibits D3
and D8 respectively and would submit that as seen from the said Lab
letters, it is clear that only satellite rights were assigned in favour of the
first defendant and it is also made clear that the exclusive overseas rights
in respect of OTT platforms is vested only with the plaintiff.
19. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also drew the attention of
this Court to the relevant clauses in the Assignment Agreement, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
01.07.2013 entered into between the second defendant and the first
defendant and in particular, he drew the attention of this Court to Clause
No.(1) and would submit that it has been made clear that the second
defendant has assigned the exclusive copyright in favour of the first
defendant only in respect of Satellite Television rights and has not
assigned the copyright insofar as internet rights in OTT platforms
overseas are concerned, which according to him is vested exclusively
with the plaintiff as per the Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the first defendant :
20. However on the contrary, the learned counsel for the first
defendant would reiterate the contents of the written statement filed by
the first defendant and would submit that the Assignment Agreement,
dated 10.04.2013 alleged to have been entered into by the second
defendant with the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document. He
would further submit that as per the Assignment Agreement, dated
01.07.2013(Ex.D1), the entire copyright has been assigned in favour of
the first defendant by the second defendant.
21. He also drew the attention of this Court to the deposition of the
plaintiff and would submit that without any authorisation, a person
claiming to be the Manager of the plaintiff was examined as a witness on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
behalf of the plaintiff.
22. He also drew the attention of this Court to the cross
examination of the plaintiff's witness (P.W.1) and would submit that the
plaintiff has not proved the existence of the vesting of the copyright in
his favour in respect of OTT platforms, internationally which is vested
exclusively with the first defendant.
23. He would also submit that no evidence has been let in by the
plaintiff insofar as the claim for damages is concerned. He would submit
that even though the plaintiff has claimed that M/s.Amazon Prime Video
has refused to broadcast the subject film due to an objection raised by the
first defendant, no evidence has been let in to that effect by the plaintiff.
Hence, he would submit that the claim for damages is also not
maintainable.
24. He also drew the attention of this Court to the relevant clauses
in the Assignment Agreement, dated 01.07.2013 entered into between the
second defendant and the first defendant (Ex.D1) and would submit that
the said clauses make it clear that the entire copyright for the entire
world is vested exclusively with the first defendant. He would also
submit that the first defendant by oversight, even though there is a
reference to the plaintiff's rights in the Lab letter issued by M/s.Gemini
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
Colour Labs, dated 02.07.2013 as well as in the Lab letter dated
05.09.2013, did not raise any objection immediately either with the Lab
or with the second defendant. Therefore, he would submit that the
plaintiff has not proved that they are having the exclusive copyright over
the film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM” in respect of the
internet overseas rights and hence, he would submit that the suit has to
be dismissed.
Discussion :
25. With regard to the first issue framed by this Court viz., (1)
“Whether the Assignment agreement dated 10.04.2013 between the
plaintiff and the second defendant is valid?”, this Court adjudicates
the same in the following manner :
i) The Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 executed
by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff has been
proved by the plaintiff due to the following reasons :
a) The second defendant, the first author of the
copyright has not disputed the execution of the
Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 (Ex.P1) in
favour of the plaintiff.
b) The Lab letter dated 12.04.2013 issued by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
M/s.Gemini Colour Lab, marked as Ex.P2 in favour of
the plaintiff confirms that the second defendant, the
first author of the copyright over the film
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM” has
assigned the overseas internet rights to the plaintiff.
The following rights have been assigned accordingly :-
The exclusive and irrevocable rights to make, sell or
let for hires copies of the cinematographic film in
commercial, non-commercial, theatrical – 70mm, 35mm,
16mm, 8mm rights, cable TV rights, Terrestrial Television
rights, Satellite Television rights (Non-Exclusive), Video
Cassettes rights, High Seas rights, Video Copy rights,
airborne rights, Sea borne rights, Rail borne rights, All
Internet rights, In-flight rights, dTH rights, Pay per view
rights, CD video rights, Broadcast, Broadband rights,
Multimedia rights, VIDEO ON DEMAND RIGHTS, Pay
Televisions rights, Direct to user (DTU) rights, Laser Disc
(LD) rights, DVD rights, Blue ray rights, HDDVDV rights,
Web TV rights, Interactive tv rights, IPTV, VCD, rights,
dVD Rights, Video Cyberspace & Video streaming,
Performance, Mechanical, Synchronization publishing,
Merchandising, Advertising, Hotel Rights, Surface
Transport rights, Movie Character based game
development rights, and I or any media or method of
exploitation now known or to become known in the picture
for the territories of Entire World Excluding India. The
above all rights for the perpetual period of 99(Ninety Nine)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
years excluding Indian Theatrical Rights, Doordarshan &
Indian Private Channel regional & National Television
rights & Indian Satellite rights.
26. The Lab letters dated 02.07.2013 as well as 05.09.2013 issued
by M/s.Gemini Colour Labs in favour of the first defendant (Exs.D3 &
D8) respectively also confirm the existence of the copyright in respect of
the overseas satellite (non exclusive) and other overseas media rights for
the subject film “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM” has
been assigned to the plaintiff for a perpetual period. The relevant
extracts from both the Lab letters (Exs.D1 and D8) which confirms that
the overseas internet rights are vested with the plaintiff is reproduced
hereunder :-
Lab letter dated 02.07.2013 (Ex.D1) :-
ENTIRE WORLD : Cinematography film in Cable TV rights,
Terrestrial Television rights, Satellite Television rights, High Seas
rights, Airborne rights, Rail borne rights, Internet rights, IP TV
(Triple play), In flight rights, DTH rights, Direct Satellite Service,
Pay Per View rights, Broadcast, Broadband rights, Telephone, Cell
Phone, Radio (all dimensions), Multimedia rights, DVD rights, VCD
rights all other video format rights, VIDEO ON DEMAND RIGHTS
Pay Television rights, Cable Pay Television rights Terrestrial Pay
Television rights, Satellite Pay Television rights, Direct-To-
User(DTU) rights, Web TV rights, Interactive TV rights, Video
Cyberspace & Video Internet rights, Free Video streaming Encrypted
or unencrypted video steaming, performance, Mechanical,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
Synchronization publishing, Merchandising, Advertising, Hotel
Rights, Surface Transport rights, Movie character based game
development rights, including India Doordarshan Television rights.
Lab letter dated 05.09.2013 :-
“We hereby confirm that we have made a note of the above
and would act accordingly. However, this confirmation is subject to
* The Overseas satellite (Non-Exclusive) and other Overseas
media rights of the above film assigned to M/s.Khafa exports, for a
perpetual period. ”
27. Having received the Lab letters from M/s.Gemini Colour Lab
(Exs.D3 & D8), the first defendant has not raised any objection
whatsoever with regard to the exclusive copyright vested with the
plaintiff, insofar as OTT platforms internationally excluding India are
concerned. No explanation has also been given by the first defendant's
witness (D.W.1), during the course of his cross examination with regard
to the same as seen from the deposition. While that be so, it is clear that
the plaintiff is exclusively vested with the copyright in respect of the
overseas rights for OTT platforms as per the Assignment Agreement,
dated 10.04.2013(Ex.P1) and as per the Lab letter issued by M/s.Gemini
Colour Labs, dated 12.04.2013 (Ex.P2).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
28. It is also noted that the second defendant has also admitted the
execution of the Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013 (Ex.P1) in
favour of the plaintiff in respect of the overseas internet rights excluding
India for the subject feature film. They have also admitted the execution
of the Assignment Agreement, dated 01.07.2013 in favour of the first
defendant (Ex.D1). They have also reiterated that only satellite rights
were assigned world wide in favour of the first defendant and the internet
rights in respect of OTT platform were not assigned in favour of the first
defendant but were assigned only in favour of the plaintiff internationally
excluding India. The Assignment Agreement entered into with the
plaintiff is also prior in point of time to that of the first defendant's
Assignment Agreement. When the first author of the copyright have
themselves admitted the execution of the Assignment Agreement, dated
10.04.2013 (Ex.P1), the plaintiff has proved through his oral and
documentary evidence that he is entitled for the declaratory relief as
prayed for in the plaint in respect of the film “VARUTHAPADATHA
VALIBAR SANGAM”.
29. After giving due consideration to the pleadings, oral and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
documentary evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the issue No.(1) has to be answered in favour of the plaintiff by
giving a finding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright
specifically set out in the schedule “B” of the Assignment Agreement,
dated 10.04.2013 in respect of the Tamil cinematographic film
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”. Therefore, the first
issue is answered by this Court in favour of the plaintiff.
30. Since the plaintiff is vested only with the copyright in respect of
internet overseas rights for the feature film “VARUTHAPADATHA
VALIBAR SANGAM”, the second issue framed by this Court viz.,
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive satellite TV rights under
the Assignment Agreement, dated 10.04.2013?”, is answered against
the plaintiff by holding that the exclusive satellite Television rights is
vested only with the first defendant as per the Assignment Agreement,
dated 01.07.2013.
31. The third issue framed by this Court viz., “Whether the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in the Tamil
cinematographic film titled “VARUTHAPADAATHA VAALIBAR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
SANGAM” and, if so, what remedies is the plaintiff entitled to?”, is
also answered in favour of the plaintiff by declaring that the plaintiff is
having the copyright only in respect of the overseas internet rights in OTT
platforms, excluding India for the Tamil cinematographic film titled
“VARUTHAPADAATHA VAALIBAR SANGAM” and not the absolute
owner of the copyright in respect of satellite Television rights,
worldwide which is exclusively vested with the first defendant.
32. With regard to the fourth issue as to "Whether the notice
dated 20.04.2020 from the first defendant is a groundless threat or
not", this Court is of the considered view that since the plaintiff is legally
vested with the copyright in respect of the overseas rights in respect of
OTT platforms, the cease and desist notice issued by the first defendant,
dated 20.04.2020(Ex.D11) is uncalled for and it is groundless threat.
Therefore, the fourth issue framed by this Court has to be answered in
favour of the plaintiff by holding that the notice, dated 20.04.2020 issued
by the first defendant is a groundless threat.
33. Insofar as the fifth issue viz., “Whether the suit is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of M/s.Amazon Prime Video?” is concerned,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
this Court is of the considered view that since the plaintiff has proved that
they are having the exclusive copyright in respect of the OTT platforms
internationally, excluding India, just because, they have not impleaded
M/s.Amazon Prime Video as a party defendants in the suit, their suit
cannot be dismissed as through their oral and documentary evidence they
have proved that they are the exclusive owner of the copyright in respect
of the overseas internet rights for the film “VARUTHAPADAATHA
VAALIBAR SANGAM”. Therefore, the fifth issue is answered in favour
of the plaintiff by holding that there is no necessity to implead
M/s.Amazon Prime Video as party defendants to the suit.
34. Though the plaintiff has claimed damages in the suit, but as
seen from the issues framed by this Court, the said issue has not been
framed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also not pressed for
the said claim for damages during the course of arguments. Therefore, it
is clear that the plaintiff is not serious in seeking the relief of damages
from the defendants. The plaintiff has not filed any communication from
M/s.Amazon Prime Video to prove that they had refused to broadcast the
film in their OTT platforms on account of the alleged objection raised by
the first defendant. As seen from the evidence available on record there
is no iota of evidence available to prove the claim for damages made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
the plaintiff.
35. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is partly decreed by granting
the following reliefs in favour of the plaintiff :
i) The plaintiff is granted the relief of declaration that
he is the absolute owner of the copyright specifically set
out in the Schedule “B” of the Assignment Agreement,
dated 10.04.2013 in respect of the Tamil cinematograph
film titled “VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”.
ii) The plaintiff is granted the relief of declaration
that the threat issued by the first defendant through its
counsel vide legal notice dated 20.04.2020 is unjustified
and groundless.
iii) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, successors-in-business, assigns,
representatives or any person claiming through or under
them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's
copyrights in the Tamil cinematograph film titled
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM”.
iv) A perpetual injunction restraining the first
defendant by themselves, their servants, agents, successors,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
assigns or any and /or all of them from in any manner
threatening the plaintiff herein, directly or indirectly, in any
manner by notices, advertisements, circulars, etc., regarding
the use, production, distribution or commercial exploitation
of the Tamil cinematograph film titled
“VARUTHAPADATHA VALIBAR SANGAM” and
thereby interfering and /or harming the business of the
plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
v) The first defendant is directed to pay the cost of
the suit.
36. Insofar as relief for damages as sought for in prayer (e) of the
plaint is concerned, the same is dismissed.
Consequently, connected applications are closed.
24.11.2023
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
vsi2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
APPENDIX
A)
List of Witness Examined on the side of the Plaintiff:
Mr.G.Murali as P.W.1
List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiff :
Sno. Exhibits Description of the Documents
1. Ex.P1 Ex.P1 is the original assignment agreement dated 10.04.2013
2. Ex.P2 Ex.P2 is the photocopy of the lab letter signed, issued by
M/s.Gemini Colour Labs dated 12.04.2013
3. Ex.P3 Ex.P3 is the photocopy of the assignment of the film by plaintiff
to Mega Movies PTE in Singapore Territory dated 02.09.2013.
4. Ex.P4 Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the assignment of the Film by the
plaintiff and Lotus Five Star (AV) (M) SDN, BHD for
Malaysian territory dated 03.09.2013
5. Ex.P5 Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the assignment by the Film agreement
by the plaintiff to Ayngaran International (UK) Ltd. in Europe
and UK territory dated 18.12.2023.
6. Ex.P6 Ex.P6 is the copy of the cease and desist notice issued by the
plaintiff dated 20.04.2020.
7. Ex.P7 Ex.P7 is the copy of the reply issued by the plaintiff to the 1st
defendant dated 23.04.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
B)
List of Witness Examined on the side of the 1st defendant:
Mr.G.Rajendran,
List of documents marked on the side of the 1st defendant
Sno. Exhibits Description of the Documents
1. Ex.D1 Ex.D1 is the photocopy of Assignment Agreement dated
01.07.2013
2. Ex.D2 Ex.D2 is the photocopy of the letter dated 01.07.2013
3. Ex.D3 Ex.D3 is the photocopy of the letter from M/s.Gemini Colour
Laboratory dated 02.07.2013
4. Ex.D4 Ex.D4 is the photocopy of the undertaking letter dated
10.07.2013
5. Ex.D5 Ex.D5 is the photocopy of the letter from 2nd defendant to 1st
defendant dated 29.8.2013.
6. Ex.D6 Ex.D6 is the photocopy of the letter from 2nd defendant to 1st
defendant dated 03.09.2013.
7. Ex.D7 Ex.D7 is the photocopy of the letter from 2nd defendant to 1st
defendant dated 05.09.2013
8. Ex.D8 Ex.D8 is the photocopy of the letter from M/s.Gemini colour Lab
to 1st defendant dated 05.09.2013.
9. Ex.D9 Ex.D9 is the photocopy of the cheque for an amount of
Rs.2,54,90,000/- drawn by 1st defendant dated 05.09.2013
10. Ex.D10 Ex.D10 is the original account book of 1st defendant dated
06.09.2013
11. Ex.D11 Ex.D11 is the office copy of the notice issued by the 1st
defendant dated 20.04.2020
12. Ex.D12 Ex.D12 is the photocopy of the reply issued by the plaintiff to the
1st defendant dated 23.04.2020.
C)
List of Witness Examined on the side of the 2nd defendant:
and
List of documents marked on the side of the 2nd defendant
Nil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
C.S. (COMM DIV.) No.402 of 2020
and
O.A. Nos.751 and 752 of 2020
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(COMM. DIV.) No.402 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
