← Library
Madras High CourtCS/293/2002dismissed

Asianet Communication Ltd. v. 1.Kairali Channel,Owned And

2021-06-22Honourable Mr Justice R. Subramanian7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN C.S. No.293 of 2002 Asianet Communications Ltd., Rep. by its DGM (Finanace) Mr. Srinivasa Raghavan ..Plaintiff Vs.

1. KAIRALI Channel Owned and Controlled by Malayalam Communications Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director and also its Chief Operations Officer Mr. Krishna Kumar 'Chandragiri', Vikramapuri Hills - 61 Karuvankonam, Kavadiyar P.O.

Thiruvananthapuram 692 023.

2. Swarga Chitra Rep. by Shri P.D. Abraham alias Appachan Jail Road P.O. Puthiyara Kozhikode 673 004.

...Defendants Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass prays for Judgement and Decree against the Defendant as follows: (a) For a Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, men, representatives, assigns and anyone whosoever claiming through the defendants from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's

copyright in respect of the exclusive satellite television telecast rights of the Malayalam feature film GOD FATHER, in whole or reproduction of any part thereof, by exploitation for public or private viewing by broadcasting on the 1st defendant's channel or on any other channel by satellite telecast. (b) Directing the 1st defendant to pay to the plaintiff, damages amounting to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with interest 18% per annum from date of plaint till date of realisation. (c) For costs of the suit.

This Civil Suit coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, advocate for plaintiff herein and the defendants herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the plaint filed herein and this court having observed that in paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is stated that the effective date of tele-cine transfer of the film was on 28/07/1997 and therefore, the right of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 14/08/1995 was valid only for a period of 5 years from 28/07/1997, which has expired long ago and therefore, this court do not see any chance of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit at this distant point of time and, it is ordered as follows:- That the suit in C.S. No. 293 of 2002, be and is hereby dismissed

under Rule 3(a) of order XIII A of the code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

WITNESS THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

Sd./- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (COMM. CASES) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

VF-15.07.2021 C.S. No.293 of 2002 ORDER :- DATED: 22.06.2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN FOR APPROVAL: 16/07/2021 APPROVED ON: 19/07/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.S.No.293 of 2002 Asianet Communications Ltd., Rep. by its DGM (Finance) Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan ...Plaintiff .Vs.

1.KAIRALI Channel Owned and Controlled by Malayalam Communications Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and also its Chief Operations Officer Mr.Krishna Kumar 'Chandragiri', Vikramapuri Hills-61 Karuvankonam, Kavadiyar P.O.

Thiruvananthapuram - 695 023.

2.Swarga Chitra Rep. by Shri P.D.Abraham alias Appachan Jail Road, P.O. Puthiyara Kozhikode - 673 004.

... Defendants Plaint filed under Section 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendants as follows:

a) For a Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, men, representatives, assigns and anyone whosoever claiming through the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's

copyright in respect of the exclusive satellite television telecast rights of the Malayalam feature film ''GOD FATHER'' in whole or reproduction of any part thereof, by exploitation for public or private viewing by broadcasting on the 1st defendant's channel or on any other channel by satellite telecast; b) Directing the 1st defendant to pay to the plaintiff, damages amounting to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with interest 18% per annum from date of plaint till date of realisation and c) For costs of the suit.

For Plaintiff : Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan For Defendants : No appearance ********

J U D G M E N T

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a) For a Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, men, representatives, assigns and anyone whosoever claiming through the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in respect of the exclusive satellite television telecast rights of the Malayalam feature film ''GOD FATHER'' in whole or reproduction of any part thereof, by exploitation for public or private viewing by broadcasting on the 1st defendant's channel or on any other channel by satellite telecast; b) Directing the 1st defendant to pay to the plaintiff, damages amounting to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with interest 18% per annum from date of plaint till date of realisation and

c) For costs of the suit.

2. The plaintiff claims satellite telecast rights of the malayalam featured film ''GOD FATHER'' for a period of five years from the date of its tele-cine transfer. In Paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is stated that the effective date of tele-cine transfer of the film was on 28.07.1997. Therefore, the right of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 14.08.1995 was valid only for a period of 5 years from 28.07.1997, which has expired long ago.

3. I therefore, do not see any chance of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit at this distant point of time. Therefore, the suit is dismissed under Rule 3(a) of Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Sd./- R.S.M.J., 22.06.2021 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 Sd./- R.S.M.J., 22.06.2021 // Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this day of 2021. Court Officer(O.S.) From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.