M/S.Novex Communications v. Grt Hotels And Resorts Pvt.Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.01.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE M/s.Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Local Field Supervisor Rokesh Parthiban ... Plaintiff Vs.

1.GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, rep. by its C.E.O. T.Nataraajan 2.Hotel GRT Grand Chennai, represented by its General Manager Shabin Sarvotham ... Defendants PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule I of C.P.C. and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 to pass a judgment and decree:

(a)for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, assigns, heirs, representatives, successors or any other person claiming through/under them from in any manner publicly performing or communicating the sound recordings works of the plaintiff to the public or allowing their premises or any premises under their control to be used for the said purpose without license from the plaintiff or in 1/4

otherwise infringing copyright in any work owned and licensed by the plaintiff;

(b)costs of the suit.

For Plaintiff :

Mr.Nirali Atha for Mr.V.V.Sivakumar For Defendants :

Ms.P.Siva Sankari for Mr.K.Senthil Kumar

JUDGMENT

The matter is listed under the caption 'for dismissal' today. 2.A counsel representing the counsel for the plaintiff has addressed this Court from Bombay through Video Conferencing. Despite the matter being listed under the caption 'for dismissal' on account of the earlier non representation of the plaintiff in this matter, the learned counsel representing the counsel for the plaintiff once again seeks for an adjournment. As seen from the earlier proceedings, there was no representation on the side of the plaintiff on 06.12.2023. Thereafter, the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal' on 13.12.2023. On 13.12.2023, the learned counsel representing the counsel for the plaintiff 2/4

submitted that he is the new counsel for the plaintiff and on that ground an adjournment was sought for. At the request of the learned counsel, an adjournment was also granted. However, this Court directed the matter to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal' today. Today, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is not ready and the counsel on record is not representing the matter and instead the counsel representing the counsel on record addresses this Court through Video Conferencing from Bombay. It can now be inferred that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting this suit. Accordingly, this suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. 04.01.2024 vga 3/4

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

vga 04.01.2024 4/4