M/S.Nemichand Jhabak v. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 05.07.2019 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.S.No.756 of 2011 M/s.Nemichand Jhabak represented by Partner V.Hitesh Jhabak S/o. (Late) Mr.N.Vazeer Chand Jhabak, Ground Floor B, Khabagh Castle, No.6/40, Circular Road, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 24.

...Plaintiff

Versus

1.Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 5, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053.

2.Reliance Media Works Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Processing Laboratory, Filmcity, Goregaon, Mumbai.

3.UFO Digital Cinema Rep. by its Manager, Valuable Techno Park Plot No.53/1, Road No.7, Opp - Akruti Trade Centre, Midc, Marol, Andhre (East) Mumbai - 400 093.

4.Prasad Xtreme Digital Network Rep. by its Manager, 58, Arunachalam Street, Saligramam, Chennai - 600 093.

5.Real Image Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 7B, Third Street, Balaji Nagar, Chennai - 600 014.

...Defendants This suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules and r/w. Section 55 of the Copy Rights Act and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C for the following reliefs:

(a) the declaration declaring the plaintiff is the absolute copy right owner of the cinematographic films, "Nan Avan Illai" in Tamil and "WHO MAN NAHIN" in Hindi.

(b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants his men, agent, subordinate or person claiming through the defendants in any manner from releasing distributing, executing and telecasting the film, "LADIES V/S RICKY BAHL" in the territory of India including Tamil Nadu and also overseas.

For Plaintiff :

No appearance For Defendant - 1 :

Mr.Karthick Sundaram Defendant - 5 :

Mr.C.Seenapathy

J U D G M E N T

When the matter was called on 03.07.2019, there was no representation on both sides. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption, "For Dismissal" on 05.07.2019 i.e., today.

2. Accordingly, today, the case is listed under the caption, "For Dismissal". When the matter is called, there is no representation for plaintiff. But the learned counsels for defendants 1 & 5 are present. Even today, none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, which shows that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the case. Therefore, this Civil Suit is dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs. 05.07.2019 mrr Index : Yes/No

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY , J., mrr C.S.No.756 of 2011 05.07.2019