[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd vs Jain Television (Mala Publicity on 6 March, 2026
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
2026:MHC:942
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 03.02.2026 Pronounced on : 06.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
OSA No. 206 of 2016
and
OSA No.207 of 2016
Cause title in OSA No.206 of 2016:
Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd.
Rep. by its
Managing Director,
4th Floor, TTMC, BMTC Building,
Yeshwanthpur Circle,
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore - 560 022.
..Appellant
Vs.
1. Jain Television (Mala Publicity
Service P Ltd)
No.4 Lady Desikachari Rd,
Mylaproe, Chennai 600 004.
2. Kavithalayaa Productions Pvt Ltd,
No.17/A, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore,
Madras - 4
3. K.Muni Kannaiah
Prop. M/s. Sapthagiri Vidio Movies
No.3 Gill Nagar, Chennai 600 094.
__________
Page1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
..Respondent(s)
.
Cause title in OSA No.207 of 2016:
Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd.
Rep. by its
Managing Director,
4th Floor, TTMC, BMTC Building,
Yeshwanthpur Circle,
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore - 560 022. ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Jain Satellite Television,
A Unit of Jain Studios Private Ltd.,
Having its Head Office at Jain Studios Campus,
Scindia Villa, Ring Road, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi – 110 023.
2.Kavithalayaa Productions Pvt Ltd,
No.17/A, Karpagambal Nagar,
Mylapore, Madras – 4.
3.K.Muni Kannaiah
Prop. M/s. Sapthagiri Vidio Movies
No.3 Gill Nagar, Chennai 600 094.
4.Jain Newspapers Private Ltd.,
Having its Head Office at Jain Studios Campus,
Scindia Villa, Ring Road, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi – 110 023.
5.Jain Studios Limited,
Having its office at Mookambigai Complex,
No.4, Lady Desikachari Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ..Respondents
__________
Page2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
Prayer in O.S.A.No.206 of 2016: This Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1
of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, prayed to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2026 passed in C.S.No.1823 of
1994.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.207 of 2016: This Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1
of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, prayed to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2026 passed in C.S.No.748 of
1997.
For Appellant(s): Mr.N.Surya Senthil
For M/s.Surana and Surana
(in both OSAs)
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan for R1
(in both OSAs)
Mr.P.R.Raman, Senior Counsel, For R2
Assisted by Mr.A.Umasankar
(in both OSAs)
Mr.Kumarapal R.Chopra for R3
(in both OSAs)
R4 not ready in notice in OSA No.207 of 2016
R5 – vacated in OSA No.207 of 2016
__________
Page3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The plaintiff in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and C.S.No.748 of 1997 aggrieved
by the common judgment and decree dated 05.01.2016 of the learned Single
Judge of this Court has filed these two appeals.
2.C.S.No.1823 of 1994 had been filed by the plaintiff, Lahari Recording
Co. P. Ltd., against the three defendants namely, Jain Television – (Mala
Publicity Service P.Ltd.) and M/s.Kavithalayaa Productions (Private) Limited
and K.Muni Kannaiah, Proprietor M/s.Sapthagiri Video Movies seeking a
judgment and decree granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff over the Telugu version of the
movie Roja by telecasting the same through its satellite network and for costs of
the suit.
3.C.S.No.748 of 1997 had been filed by the same plaintiff, Lahari
Recording Co. P. Ltd., against five defendants namely, Jain Satelite Television,
Kavithalayaa Productions Private Limited, Muni Kannaiah, Proprietor
M/s.Sapthagiri Video Movies and Jain Studios Limited seeking a judgment and
decree against the defendants directing them to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.1/- crore together with interest and costs.
__________
Page4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
C.S.No.1823 of 1994:
4.It had been contended in the plaint that the plaintiff had obtained sole
and exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu language the film Roja
in Cinemascope, written and directed by Mani Rathnam. The plaintiff claimed
that they had obtained the rights from the 2 nd defendant by an instrument dated
16.06.1992. The 2nd defendant as producers of the film were the original
copyright owners. The plaintiff claimed that they had paid consideration of
Rs.34,50,000/- for a period of 25 years from 16.06.1992 in respect of the areas
including entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam,
Coastal Andhra and Orissa. The plaintiff claimed that they had not parted with
any of their rights to any other individual. The plaintiff had dubbed the said
picture into Telugu at huge cost and released the same only in certain of the
areas allotted to it. The plaintiff came across an announcement made by the
defendant on 06.12.1994 that they are going to telecast the Telugu version of
the Tamil film Roja through their satellite network on 10.12.1994. The plaintiff
contended that the defendant had no manner of right to telecast the said picture
as the plaintiff had not parted with the rights of exhibition of the picture to
anybody. The plaintiff issued a telegraphic notice calling upon the defendant not
to telecast the said picture. It was under those circumstances that the suit had
been filed seeking permanent injunction.
__________
Page5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
5.The 1st defendant / Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service P. Ltd. had
filed a written statement denying and disputing the claim of the plaintiff. They
claimed that the plaintiff had only theatrical rights in Andhra Pradesh but had
not acquired satellite rights. They claimed that the satellite right for entire Asian
Region including Andhra Pradesh had been obtained by them by agreement
dated 02.12.1994 executed by the 3rd defendant for the period 02.12.1994 to
01.12.1995 for a consideration of Rs.3,20,000/-. It was contended that therefore
the plaintiff had no right to seek injunction against the defendant from
telecasting the said movie or from broadcasting the said movie in extraterritorial
orbit and beam down a microwave signal through satellite antennae and
rebroadcast in the contracted territories. It was therefore claimed that the suit
should be dismissed.
6.The 2nd defendant filed a written statement claiming that the plaintiff
was granted the sole and exclusive right for dubbing and remaking the movie
Roja for a period of 25 years. The plaintiff was also granted the right to sub-
lease the said right including the 16mm rights for the Telugu dubbed version.
The plaintiff was also entitled to exploit the Telugu dubbed version through
television in Andhra Pradesh. It was contended that the agreement did not
contemplate exhibition or distribution of the Telugu dubbed version of the
movie through satellite. It was also contended that the plaintiff had entered into
__________
Page6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
an agreement with the 3rd defendant granting rights to exploit the movie through
video cassettes. It was stated that the plaintiff had acted in excess of the rights
granted. It was contended that the 3 rd defendant had however informed that the
movie had already been telecast once through the 1 st defendant’s network. The
2nd defendant by agreement dated 19.12.1994 assigned to the 3 rd defendant the
right to dub and telecast through satellite television the movie Roja in Telugu
for two times only. It was contended that however the plaintiff is not entitled for
injunction restraining any of the defendants from acting in accordance with the
rights granted in their agreements. It was therefore contended that the suit
should be dismissed.
7.A reply statement was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the fact that they
had been granted rights to dub the film Roja. They claimed that the person who
had the dubbing rights could also termed as the producer of the dubbed version
of the film and that they had the full right over the film. It was contended that,
therefore, the plaintiff should be deemed to be the producer of the Telugu
version. They also held the Censor Certificate in their name reflecting that the
plaintiff was the producer of the Telugu film Roja and had the absolute rights
over the same. The plaintiff denied the allegations made in the written statement
of the 1st and 2nd defendants and therefore contended that the suit should be
dismissed.
__________
Page7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
C.S.No.748 of 1997:
8.The plaintiff Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd. contended that the 2 nd
defendant, Kavithalayaa Production Private Ltd., was the producer and absolute
owner of the copyright and other rights in respect of the film Roja Tamil,
Colour in Cinemascope, written and directed by Mani Rathnam. The plaintiff
claimed that they had entered into an agreement with the 2 nd defendant on
16.06.1992, whereby they were granted the sole and exclusive right over
dubbing/remaking right of the said Tamil film Roja into Telugu language and
exploit the Telugu version for a period of 25 years. They also paid a huge
consideration. It was also contended that the 2nd defendant had agreed to give to
the plaintiff an irrevocable lab authorisation letter to utilize the mother negative
for Telugu dubbing / remaking of the said movie. It was also stated that the
plaintiff had dubbed the movie into Telugu and had also released the same in
some of the areas allotted to it. The plaintiff then came to know that the 1 st
defendant had projected that they would telecast the Telugu version of the
Tamil film Roja through their satellite network on 10.12.1994. In this
connection, seeking permanent injunction, the plaintiff had filed C.S.No.1823 of
1994 restraining the defendant from infringing the right of the plaintiff. It was
contended that the 1st defendant however evaded receipt of notice and summons
from the Court. Claiming that the plaintiff had suffered damages for unlawful
telecast of the movie by the defendants, the suit had been filed seeking a sum of
Rs.1/- crore from the defendants together with interest and costs.
__________
Page8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
9.The 2nd defendant M/s.Kavithalayaa Productions Private Ltd., filed a
written statement stating that the plaintiff was granted right to dub/remake the
Tamil film Roja into Telugu and to distribute, exhibit and exploit the same in
the territory of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa for a period of 25 years by
agreement dated 16.06.1992. It was contended that the plaintiff can exploit the
Telugu dubbed version in television in Andhra Pradesh alone. It was further
contended that satellite television rights were not granted to the plaintiff. It was
also contended that the plaintiff had dubbed the film into Telugu and had also
exploited it by granting right to the 3 rd defendant to exploit the movie through
video cassettes. The 2nd defendant further contended that they had entered into
an agreement with the 3rd defendant on 19.12.1994 granting rights to telecast the
Telugu dubbed movie for just two occasions. It was further contended that the
plaintiff can never claim that they are the absolute owners of all copyright in the
Telugu dubbed version of the movie Roja. It was contended that the defendant
was not liable for damages as claimed by the plaintiff.
10.The 4th and 5th defendants also filed their written statement claiming
that the cause of action of the suit arose on 09.12.1994 and 10.12.1994 when the
Telugu dubbed version of the movie Roja was telecasted through satellite
television and that the suit instituted in the year 2000 was barred by limitation.
It was contended that the plaintiff themselves had admitted that they had only
limited copy right ownership with regard to the Telugu dubbed version of the
__________
Page9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
film Roja. They further contended that the said defendants had the exclusive
satellite television right which included the right to broadcast the movie in
extraterritorial orbit and beam down a microwave signal through satellite
antennae. It was contended that the defendants are not obliged to pay damages
to the plaintiff much less the damages claimed in the plaint. It was therefore
stated that the suit should be dismissed.
11.A reply statement was filed by the plaintiff again reiterating that in
accordance with the agreement with the 2 nd defendant, they should be termed as
the producers of the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil movie Roja. It was
contended that therefore they had acquired exclusive rights for telecasting
Telugu movie Roja in the areas assigned in the agreement. It was contended that
in violation of their rights, the movie was telecasted in the television on
09.12.1994 and 10.12.1994. It was contended that the defendants are therefore
liable to pay damages which had been quantified by the plaintiff at Rs.1/- crore
together with interest and costs.
12.On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed in
C.S.No.1823 of 1994:
“1. Whether the plaintiff's copyrights are confined only to
dubbing and remaking of the film "ROJA" in Telugu in the area of
Andhra Pradesh?
__________
Page10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
2. Whether the plaintiff has any satellite rights specifically
assigned to it?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to assert in the absence of
satellite rights in its favour that the defendant has infringed its
copyrights?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction?
5.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?”
13.The following issues were framed in C.S.No.748 of 1997:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of
the negative rights and all other copyrights including satellite
rights, in respect of the Telugu version of the film "ROJA"?
2. Whether the nature of copyright acquired by the plaintiff
under the agreement with the second defendant dated 16.06.1992
was only the theatrical right?
3. Has the first defendant acquired satellite rights in
respect of the Telugu version of the film "ROJA"?
4. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation insofar as
the fifth defendant is concerned?
5. Whether the defendants caused loss to the plaintiff by
telecasting the Telugu version of the film "ROJA"?
6. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff a
sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages with interest?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
__________
Page11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
14.Joint trial was conducted in both the cases and C.S.No.1823 of 1994
was taken as the lead case.
15.During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the Managing Director of the
plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P27 were marked. The
defendants did not adduce oral evidence. They marked Exs.D1 and D2 during
cross examination of PW-1.
16.Among the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff, Ex.P1 dated
16.06.1992 was the agreement between the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant,
Ex.P2 was the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification and
Ex.P3 was the Clearance Certificate from the Film Publicity Clearance
Committee of South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, both documents dated
20.11.1992. Ex.P4 dated 25.01.1993 was the agreement between the plaintiff
and the 3rd defendant. The letter issued by the Central Board of Film
Certification to the plaintiff dated 13.11.1992 was marked as Ex.P12 and the
letter issued by the plaintiff to the Central Board of Film Certification enclosing
authorisation issued by the 2nd defendant was marked as Ex.P13. The letters
from the counsel for the plaintiff enclosing notices were marked as Exs.P16 to
P19. The notice issued to the 1st, 4th and 5th defendants was marked as Ex.P25
and the notice to the 2nd defendant was marked as Ex.P26.
__________
Page12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
17.The agreement between the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant dated
19.12.1994 was marked as Ex.D1 and the agreement between the 4th defendant
and 3rd defendant dated 30.09.1994 was marked as Ex.D2.
18.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Single Judge held Issue Nos.1 and 3 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994 and Issue Nos.2
and 3 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 against the plaintiff. This effectively meant that it
was held that the plaintiff did not have satellite rights assigned specifically and
therefore, cannot claim that the defendants have infringed its copyright. It
would further indicate that the learned Single Judge had held that the only
copyright acquired by the plaintiff was theatrical rights and that the 1 st
defendant had acquired the satellite rights of the Telugu version of the Tamil
film Roja. With respect to Issue No.1 in C.S.No.1823 of 1994, the learned
Single Judge held that the theatrical right of the plaintiff for the Telugu dubbed
version of the film Roja had not been infringed by the defendants. With respect
to the issue of limitation, it was held that the 5th defendant was impleaded within
three years from the date of the suit and therefore, the suit was not barred by the
limitation so far as the 5th defendant is concerned. With respect to Issue No.4 in
C.S.No.1823 of 1994 namely, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction, the learned Single Judge held that the plaintiff was not
entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. With respect to Issue No.1 in
C.S.No.748 of 1997, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled for damages
__________
Page13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
as claimed by them. With respect to issue No.6 in C.S.No.748 of 1997 it had
been held that since the plaintiff had not been assigned with satellite right they
do not have any cause of action to file the suit.
19.In view of the above findings, it had been held with respect to Issue
No.5 in both the suits that the defendants had not caused any loss to the plaintiff
and that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief in the suits. Holding as
above, the learned Single Judge dismissed the two suits with costs.
20.Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff had filed the
present two appeals.
21.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.N.Surya Senthil, learned counsel for
the appellant in both the appeals, Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.A.Umasankar, for the 2nd respondent, Mr.S.Vijaya Raghavan,
learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.Kumarapal R. Chopra learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent.
22.It is the contention of Mr.N.Surya Senthil, learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant had entered into an agreement dated 16.06.1992,
with the 2nd respondent, M/s.Kavithalayaa Productions Private Ltd., for
exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu language the film Roja in
__________
Page14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
Cinemascope, written and directed by Mani Rathnam. The learned counsel
contended that by this agreement, the appellant had acquired the sole and
exclusive right to distribute the same movie in the areas of entire Andhra
Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal Andhra and Orissa for
a period of 25 years from the date of the agreement. It was also pointed out by
the learned counsel that, as consideration, the appellant had paid a sum of
Rs.34,50,000/-. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the
appellant had dubbed the said movie into Telugu and therefore, has to be
considered as the copyright holder of the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil
film Roja.
23.The learned counsel contended that recognizing that fact, the Central
Board of Film Certification had also issued a certificate for unregistered public
exhibition under Ex.P2 dated 20.11.1992 and the Film Publicity Clearance
Committee of the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce had also issued
clearance certificate under Ex.P3 on 20.11.1992. The learned counsel pointed
out the definition of first owner of copyright as stipulated under Section 17 of
the Copyright Act, 1957, according to which, in the case of cinemascope film
made for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall
be the first owner of the copyright. The learned counsel argued that in the case
of cinematograph film this would effectively mean it was the producer at whose
instance the film was made and who had paid consideration for the production
of the said film who could be termed as the first owner of the copyright.
__________
Page15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
24.In this connection, the learned counsel pointed out that the appellant
had dubbed the Tamil film Roja into Telugu at substantial cost and contended
that therefore with respect to the Telugu dubbed version, the plaintiff was the
first owner of the copyright. The learned counsel further pointed out that, as the
owner of the copyright, the appellant acquired rights to assign the copyright
under Section 18 of the Act and also to exercise the right to seek injunction for
infringement of such copyright.
25.The learned counsel argued that the right acquired by the appellant
cannot be restricted to or limited to only theatrical exhibition of the Telugu
dubbed movie but also against any other form of exploitation of the Telugu
dubbed movie. He pointed out that the 1st respondent had exploited the movie in
satellite television in the area for which theatrical rights had been granted to the
appellant and therefore, pointed out that the appellant was entitled to seek
injunction restraining infringement of the right acquired by it and argued that
the learned Single Judge had misdirected himself in refusing to grant the relief
sought. The learned counsel therefore urged that the judgment under appeal
should be set aside and the suit should be decreed and the appeal should be
allowed.
26.Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent /
Kavithalayaa Productions (Private) Ltd., stated that the appellant had indeed
__________
Page16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
been granted the right under the agreement dated 16.06.1992 by the 2 nd
respondent to dub or to remake in Telugu language the Tamil movie Roja, but
the right was restricted to the areas specified in the agreement and more
importantly, only to exploit that version in theatres in such areas. The learned
Senior Counsel very fairly pointed out that the respondents have never objected
to the appellant exploiting such right. He further however pointed out that as
producer of the Tamil movie the 2 nd respondent alone had the right to assign the
copyright to anybody they prefer and in this manner they had assigned the rights
to exploit the satellite television rights, independently to the 1st respondent.
27.It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the theatrical and
the satellite rights are two distinct and separate rights, which the 2 nd respondent
had acquired as producers of the movie and they could be assigned independent
of each to different entities and to different individuals for separate
considerations. He therefore asserted that the rights of the appellant had been
restricted to theatrical rights of the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil movie
Roja. The suit claiming a restraint on the respondents from exploiting the
Telugu dubbed version in satellite television will necessary have to fail and such
injunction cannot be granted. The learned Senior Counsel therefore asserted
that, it would only follow that damages cannot also be granted to the appellant.
__________
Page17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
28.Mr.S.Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel pointed out that the 1 st
respondent had acquired the satellite right of Telugu dubbed version of Roja and
argued that the said right is independent of the theatrical rights obtained by the
appellant. The learned counsel asserted the right of the 1st respondent to exploit
the satellite rights in accordance with the agreement granted to it under Ex.D1
dated 19.12.1994. The learned counsel pointed out that consideration had also
been paid to the 2nd respondent for assigning such rights. He pointed out that the
learned Single Judge had considered all factors and had correctly dismissed the
suit and argued that the said judgment does not warrant any interference.
29.Mr.Kumarapal R. Chopra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent
contended that the 3rd respondent had acquired rights from the appellant under
Ex.P4 dated 25.01.1993 and stated that the 3 rd respondent had acted only within
the terms of such agreement. The learned counsel contended that the appellant
had a right to assign the theatrical rights to the 3rd respondent and insisted that
the said rights acquired by the 3rd respondent should not be curtailed by the
Court.
30.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
__________
Page18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
31.The following points arise for consideration:
“i).Whether the appellant to whom admittedly the theatrical
rights in the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil film Roja had
been assigned by the 2nd respondent can claim injunction
restraining the 1st respondent from exploiting the satellite rights of
the Telugu dubbed version of the said film Roja?
ii)Whether by exploiting the satellite rights of the Telugu
dubbed version of the Tamil film Roja assigned to it, the 1 st
respondent had infringed upon the copyright of the appellant with
respect to the said film?
iii)Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction against the respondents and whether the
respondents are liable to compensate by way of damages if any
infringement is held to have been caused by them to the
appellant?”
32.Since the pleadings and evidence in the two suits overlap, all the three
points are taken together for discussion and determination.
33.The appellant had instituted two suits, the first one in C.S.No.1823 of
1994 seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from exploiting
__________
Page19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil film Roja through satellite television
and the second suit in C.S.No.748 of 1997 seeking damages for infringement of
the rights of the appellant.
34.The appellant had laid the suits on the basis of an agreement marked
as Ex.P1 dated 16.06.1992 entered into by them with the 2 nd respondent, by
which agreement they were assigned the right to dub / remake in Telugu the
Tamil movie Roja in specific areas for theatrical exhibition. The appellant can
claim only the rights assigned under the agreement and cannot claim any further
or larger. They had dubbed the movie in Telugu and to that extent can always
exploit the Telugu version of the said movie in theatres in the areas specified in
Ex.P1 namely, the entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema),
Nizam, Coastal Andhra and Orissa. They had paid consideration only to acquire
that limited right.
35.The said Tamil film Roja written and directed by Mani Ratnam was
produced by the 2nd respondent / M/s.Kavithalayaa Production Private Ltd.
Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the person at whose instance for
valuable consideration the cinemascope film is made is deemed to be the first
owner of the copyright. In common parlance, such individual is called the
producer of the film. It is at the instance of the producer for valuable
consideration that any movie is made. As the first owner of the copyright, the
__________
Page20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
producer has a right to assign the copyright either wholly or in parts. At the time
when the Tamil film Roja had been released, there were two separate and
distinct rights which could be assigned by the first owner of the copyright
namely, exhibition of the movie in theatres and exhibition of the movie via
satellite television. The producer can also assign the right to dub / remake of the
movie in any other language and even for the dubbed versions, independently
theatrical and satellite rights could be assigned to different individuals.
36.In the aforesaid manner, the 2nd respondent had assigned the theatrical
rights of the Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil movie Roja to the appellant.
The agreement in this regard is very clear on this aspect. The appellant can also
exploit the movie in television but cannot telecast it through satellite right. The
2nd respondent had granted that particular right to the 1 st respondent, Jain
Television – (Mala Publicity Service P. Ltd.). The grievance expressed by the
appellant is that the 1st respondent exploited the Telugu dubbed version through
satellite television and therefore, they should be injuncted from exploiting such
right. As repeatedly pointed out, the rights granted to the appellant for
exploitation of the movie in Telugu dubbed version was restricted to exhibit the
same in theatres and not via., satellite networks. It is also to be noted that the
appellant had violated their terms of the agreement by granting a right to the 3 rd
respondent to make video cassettes of the Telugu version of the film Roja. This
necessitated a separate agreement to be entered into between 2 nd and 3rd
__________
Page21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
respondents to telecast the Telugu dubbed version for two times only. That was
a limited right. The 1st respondent had every right to exploit the movie via.,
satellite network and the appellant can never object to the same. It is evident
that the satellite rights had not been specifically assigned to the appellant under
Ex.P1 agreement.
37.In view of the fact that satellite rights had not been granted, the
appellant can never seek any relief restraining exploitation of the satellite rights
by the 1st respondent to whom such rights had been specifically given by the
producer of the movie / 2nd respondent. The arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant that under Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 the
word “original” had been omitted with respect to cinematograph films, would
not take the appellant anywhere. The appellant’s rights are restricted only to the
right granted by the first owner of the copyright, namely the 2 nd respondent. The
appellant cannot seek to expand that right any further.
38.In view of the above discussion, we answer the points framed for
consideration by holidng that the appellant can never seek injunction against the
respondent for exploiting Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil movie Roja via.,
satellite as the appellant was granted only the right to dub the movie into Telugu
and exploit the same in theatres and in television in specific areas stipulated
under the agreement, and consequently that the appellant cannot seeking
injunction as claimed and cannot also seek damages as sought.
__________
Page22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
39.The appeals are therefore stand dismissed with costs.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
06-03-2026
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page23 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
smv
Pre-delivery judgment made in
OSA Nos. 206 & 207 of 2016
06-03-2026
__________
Page24 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 07:09:15 pm )
