Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Singham Mail

Singham Mail

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18,829|Likes:
Published by TorrentFreak_

More info:

Published by: TorrentFreak_ on Jul 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





"Agarwal Law Associates" <mail@aglaw.in>
July 30, 2011 10:43:55 AM GMT+03:00
Subject: Infringement of copyright in the Movie "Singham"
Ref: Infringement of copyright in the Movie “Singham”
Dear Sir,
We are concerned for our clients Reliance Big Entertainment Private Ltd. having their office at 5
Floor, Maruti Chambers, Veera Desai Extension Road, Off New Link Road,Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 who have instructed us to address you as under:
1. This is to inform you that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS(OS) No.1724 o2011 filed by our clients, has passed the following Order on 20
July, 2011(popularly known as the John Doe Order) :
Notice for the date fixed.
Plaintiff is the producer of cinematograph film “Singham” .Plaintiff apprehends that the said movie will be copied anDVDs/CDs thereof will be prepared, distributed in the market asalso shown on TV by the cable operators, thereby causing hugefinancial losses to the plaintiff. In case the film is shown on cableand internet, by the persons who are not being authorized by the plaintiff to do so, cine goers may not go to theaters to see the film,resulting in huge financial losses to the plaintiff. It is contended that copying and distributing the film on CDs/DVDs/Blue-ray discs/VCDetc. by such unscrupulous persons has been noticed in respect of new releases in recent past. Such films are shown by the cableoperators. It is further contended that plaintiff is able to find out thenames of defendant nos. 1 to 5 who had been indulging in suchactivities. Apart from them, many unknown persons may alsoindulge in similar activity. Since names and addresses of such cableoperators/persons are not known, they have been collectively arrayed as defendant nos. 6 to 30 in the assumed name of “Mr. Ashok Kumar”. It is contended that in this regard “John Doe”, practice may have to beresorted which is well recognized not only in United States of  America, Canada, England and Australia but also in India. Reliancehas been placed on Taj Television vs. Rajan Mandal and Ors. 2003FSR 22 and order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No. 821/2011 in UTV Software Communications Limited vs.Home Cable Network Ltd. and Ors. Perusal of the orders, reliancewhereupon has been placed by the plaintiff, shows that suchunknown unauthorized persons can be arrayed as defendant nos.6 to 30 and “John Doe” order may be passed against such personsenabling plaintiff to serve order upon such persons when their identity is disclosed. Past practice of unauthorized personsindulging in such illegal activities of copying the film on

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->