MANU/TN/1481/2016

Equivalent Citation: 2017(5)C TC 60, 2016(67)PTC 59(Mad)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.S. Nos. 1823 of 1994 and 748 of 1997
Decided On: 05.01.2016
Appellants: Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service P. Ltd.) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for Surana &
Surana
For Respondents/Defendant: S. Vijayaraghavan and G. Jaishankar
Case Note:
Intellectual Property Rights - Copyright - Present suit filed for permanent
injunction restraining Defendant in any manner infringing Plaintiffs
copyright over movie in question by telecasting same through its satellite
network - Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief of permanent injunction -
Held, satellite rights had not been specifically conferred to Plaintiff under
agreement and what was assigned to him was only right to make other
language dubbed version of film produced by Defendant - In absence of any
specific recital in agreement as to assigning of satellite right, Plaintiff could
not claim that satellite right given to them under agreement - Unless
satellite television right was specifically conferred and assigned in favour of
Plaintiff, it could not be said or claimed that it was having such right, which
was infringed by contesting Defendants - Plaintiff had not been
conferred/assigned with satellite rights in respect of other language
dubbed version of film, it did not have any cause of action to file suit -
Plaintiff had failed to probablise and substantiate their case about
acquirement and assignment of satellite rights and also that other
language dubbed version of film - Therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to
damages as claimed by them - Suit dismissed. [27],[30],[37] and[38]
JUDGMENT
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
C.S. No. 1823 of 1994
1. It is averred by the plaintiff that it is a registered company and had obtained the
sole and exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu language the film ROJA in
Cinemascope, written and directed by Thiru. Mani Rathnam and it had obtained the
said rights from the second defendant, vide instrument dated 16.06.1992, as it is the
original copyright owner in respect of the said picture. It is further stated by the
plaintiff that they had got the sole exclusive rights for dubbing, remaking and

25-01-2019 (Page 1 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

exhibiting the said dubbed and remade version of the said picture from the second
defendant for a consideration of Rs. 34,50,000/- for a period of 25 years from the
date of the instrument on 16.06.1992 in respect of the areas, namely entire Andhra
Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal Andhra and Orissa and by
virtue of the fact that it has paid the entire consideration, it has become a limited
copyright owner in respect of the Telugu version of the said picture in the
aforementioned areas for a period of 25 years. It is also the specific case of the
plaintiff that it has not parted with any of its rights in respect of the said Telugu
version of the picture to any person in respect of the said areas and by incurring
huge costs, it dubbed the said picture into Telugu and released the same very
recently only in certain areas allotted to it and is yet to exploit its right in the
majority of the areas allotted to it and unless and until it does so, the plaintiff will
not be able to get gainful use of the dubbed version. The plaintiff would further aver
that to it's utter shock and surprise, it came across an advertisement made by the
defendant on 06.12.1994, stating that it is going to telecast the Telugu version of the
Tamil film ROJA through its satellite network on 10.12.1994 and the defendant has
no right whatsoever to telecast the said picture, as the plaintiff did not part with the
rights of exhibition of the picture in Telugu version to any person. It is also stated by
the plaintiff that if the defendant is allowed to telecast the said picture through its
satellite network, its copyright will be infringed as it could be viewed throughout the
world including the areas over which the plaintiff has got sole exclusive rights of
exhibition and exploitation of the said film through various media including 16mm,
35mm television rights and satellite rights. The plaintiff, on coming to know about
the intention of the defendant, has sent a telegraphic notice to the learned counsel
for the defendant calling upon the defendant not to telecast the said picture in view
of the right claimed by the plaintiff and therefore, came forward to file the present
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants or
anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiffs copyright
over the Telugu version of the picture ROJA by telecasting the same through its
satellite network and with costs.
2 . Originally the Suit was filed against the first defendant alone and subsequently,
the defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded, vide order dated 04.06.2007 made in A. No.
2083/1995.
3. The first defendant has filed it's written statement contending among other things
that by virtue of the agreement dated 16.06.1992, the plaintiff has only theatrical
rights in Andhra Pradesh and does not have satellite rights and the absolute satellite
right for entire Asian Region including Andhra Pradesh have been obtained by the
defendant, vide agreement dated 02.12.1994 executed by the third defendant and he
has granted and assigned the exclusive satellite television rights to the first
defendant for telecast in the Asian Region during the period from 02.12.1994 to
01.12.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 3,20,000/-. The defendant would further state
that as satellite rights includes right to broadcast through satellite in extraterritorial
orbit and beam down a microwave signal through satellite antennae, TVRO's &
SMATV system and rebroadcast in the contracted territories, denied the fact that the
plaintiff did not part with their satellite rights. It is further averred by the first
defendant that the plaintiff is having rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu
language of the film ROJA only in Andhra Pradesh, which does not include satellite
rights and hence, the question of infringement of the said rights on their part does
not arise. The first defendant would further state that the second defendant, who is
the original producer of Tamil Film ROJA, has entered into an agreement and
assigned satellite TV rights to the third defendant, who in-turn assigned and

25-01-2019 (Page 2 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

transferred the same to the second defendant for a particular period and thereby, it is
having absolute satellite rights in respect of the entire Asian Region for a particular
period and whereas the plaintiff has only limited rights, namely dubbing and
remaking of the said film with theatrical rights only in Andhra Pradesh and he has no
satellite rights and hence, prays for dismissal of the Suit.
4 . The second defendant has filed the written statement stating that being the
original producer of the Tamil Film ROJA, it is having absolute copyright in respect of
the said film, vide agreement dated 16.06.1992 entered into between them and the
plaintiff and the plaintiff was granted the sole and exclusive right for
dubbing/remaking into Telugu, the movie ROJA for a period of 25 years and also
granted the right to sub-lease the said right including the 16mm rights for the Telugu
dubbed version and in addition, the plaintiff was also entitled to exploit the Telugu
dubbed version through television in Andhra Pradesh. It is the specific case of the
second defendant that by any stretch of imagination, the agreement did not
contemplate exhibition or distribution of the Telugu dubbed version of the movie
through satellite and its right were limited only to terrestrial exhibition. The second
defendant would further state that it entered into an agreement with the third
defendant and granted him the rights to exploit the Telugu version of the movie ROJA
through video cassettes, which was never conferred on the plaintiff. It is further
stated by the second defendant that the third defendant approached them alleging
that he had acquired the rights to exploit the Telugu version of the movie ROJA into
video cassettes pursuant to the agreement entered into by him with the plaintiff and
further that he had telecast the movie through the network of the first defendant and
requested the plaintiff to assign in his favour the copyright to dub the film again and
at that point of time, the second defendant did not initiate action against the plaintiff
and the third defendant for infringing its copyright on account of lack of proper legal
advice and on getting information that the movie had already been telecast once
through the first defendant's channel and subsequent conduct of the third defendant
in approaching them for getting the right dub and telecast through satellite television
the film ROJA in Telugu for two times and it was limited to satellite rights and
enough caution was exercised to preserve the terrestrial rights of the plaintiff. It is
the categorical stand of the second defendant that it never authorized the third
defendant to deal with the plaintiff's dubbed version of the movie ROJA and hence, it
cannot be responsible for indulgence/lapse on the part of the third respondent and
the plaintiff was not possessed of any right for satellite exhibition of the dubbed
version of the movie and hence, prays for dismissal of the Suit with costs.
5. The plaintiff has filed a reply statement denying the averments made in the written
statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 and reiterated it's stand taken in the plaint
and stated that the third defendant has misused the right accorded to the plaintiff to
prepare video cassettes and sold the same to the first defendant for telecasting in
satellite television and the first defendant, in spite of the subsistence of the interim
order in the Suit, has done so. According to the plaintiff, the dubbing rights granted
to them includes satellite rights and the right to prepare Video Cassettes etc. and the
Censor Board has issued Censor Certificate dated 20.11.1992 in the name of the
plaintiff and so also the Film Publicity Clearance Committee, South Indian Film
Chamber of Commerce has issued clearance certificate in the name of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff would further contend that the second defendant has colluded with the
third defendant and unlawfully sold the dubbing and satellite rights and the second
defendant has no right whatsoever to sell the dubbing rights once again to the third
defendant and on account of the collusion, the second defendant did not take steps
and prays for decreeing of the Suit.

25-01-2019 (Page 3 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

C.S. No. 748 of 1997
6 . The plaintiff in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 has filed this Suit praying for a judgment
and decree directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore only) with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of
plaint till the date of realisation alleging that on account of the acts of the
defendants, it suffered loss and damages. It is averred by the plaintiff that the
plaintiff apart from reiterating the averments made by them in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994
would state that on account of the agreement entered into by them with the second
defendant, namely M/s. Kavithalayaa Productions, it has become the sole and
absolute owner of the negative rights and all other copyrights including the right to
telecast the picture either in the television or through satellite television throughout
the world and the plaintiff had entered into another agreement with the third
defendant dated 25.01.1993 conferring them right to telecast in India alone. It is
further averred by the plaintiff that the first defendant in collusion with the
defendants 2 to 4, had telecasted the picture on 9th and 10th December 1994
through satellite throughout the world and thereby, the plaintiff has suffered loss and
damages and on account of the same, proceeds of the plaintiff to earn income by
telecasting was hampered and dimmed. The first defendant, on account of telecasting
the picture throughout the world through satellites, has earned crores of rupees by
way of advertisements, sponsorships, naming rights etc. and the estimated loss
suffered by the plaintiff on account of the acts of the first defendant is a minimum of
Rs. 1 Crore and hence, came forward to file this Suit.
7. The second defendant has filed a written statement reiterating their stand taken by
them in the written statement filed in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 and would further state
that the plaintiff is trying to mis-interpret the agreement dated 16.06.1992 to its
advantage illegally and at no point of time, satellite right was given to the plaintiff
under the above said agreement. It is further stated by the second defendant that the
effect and meaning of the agreement entered into between the third defendant is that
it can dub the film ROJA into Telugu language only and it did not give the third
defendant to exploit the plaintiff's Telugu dubbed version ROJA and the agreement
between them and the plaintiff gives the plaintiff the sole and exclusive right to dub
and remake for the purpose of distributing theatrical rights in Andhra Pradesh and
other specified territories for a period of 25 years and this cannot be construed to
mean that the second defendant cannot give dubbing rights of the film ROJA in
Telugu language to anyone else for exploitation otherwise than in theatres and hence,
prayed for dismissal of the Suit.
8. The fifth defendant came to be impleaded as per the order dated 16.06.2000 made
in A. Nos. 1801 and 1802 of 2000 and the defendants 1, 4 and 5 had filed their
written statements, denying the averments made in the plaint and took a stand that
the claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation and on merits of the case
contended that the plaintiff is having right to exploit the Telugu dubbed version in
television in Andhra Pradesh and no other rights including satellite rights were
granted to the plaintiff and it is only limited with regard to the Telugu dubbed version
of the film ROJA and also further denied the fact that the plaintiff alone had the
exclusive copyright of exhibition including satellite television rights. The said
defendants also took a legal plea that this Court has specifically held in a series of
decisions that satellite rights cannot be the subject matter of assumption or of
automatic transfer, but can only be the subject of specific and unambiguous transfer
and unless there is a specific transfer of satellite rights made clear in the agreement,
no assignee can stake claim to it as a matter of course or right and hence, prayed for

25-01-2019 (Page 4 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

dismissal of the Suit with costs.
9 . The plaintiff has filed it's reply statement reiterating the stand taken by them in
the plaint and stated that the defendants 1 and 3 had committed fraud and they
actively colluded with each other to deprive the valuable right of the plaintiff and in
fact the second defendant had taken away the negatives of the film ROJA from Vijaya
Colour Laboratory on 01.02.1999 and refused to give back and the second defendant
had once again assigned the satellite right of the Telugu movie to ETv also. Thus it is
the specific stand of the plaintiff that it is having satellite rights in respect of the
Telugu version/of the film ROJA and therefore, the defendants have no right
whatsoever to telecast the said film through satellite and on account of illegal
telecast, it has suffered loss and therefore, entitled to a decree for damages.
10. The plaintiff has also filed A. No. 3595 of 2008 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997 praying
for joint trial and vide order dated 11.08.2008, it was ordered and the evidence
recorded in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 is to be taken as evidence in C.S. No. 728 of 1997
also.
11. In C.S. No. 1823 of 1994, the following issues are framed:
"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?
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?"
12. In C.S. No. 748 of 1997, the following issues are framed:
"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?"

25-01-2019 (Page 5 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

13. The Managing Director of the plaintiff company has filed his proof affidavit in
lieu of chief examination and through him, Exs. P1 to P27 were marked. No oral
evidence was let in on behalf of the defendants and Exs. D1 and D2 were marked
while P.W. 1 was cross examined.
14. Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in both
the Suits has invited the attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W. 1 and
exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff and would contend that as per Ex.
P1/agreement dated 16.06.1992 entered into between the second defendant and the
plaintiff for the Telugu dubbing/remaking rights of the Tamil film ROJA, only with the
rights to distribute, exhibit and exploit the said Telugu dubbed/remarked version of
the said picture in the areas of the entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts
(Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal Andhra Pradesh, Orissa for a period of 25 years and a
sum of Rs. 34,50,000/- has been paid as consideration to the second defendant for
granting the said right and the second defendant has also agreed to give an
irrevocable lab authorization letter to the plaintiff to utilize the mother negative for
Telugu dubbing remake purposes and also for making the number of Telugu dubbed
prints as and when required by the plaintiff during the period of agreement and in
pursuant to Ex. P1/agreement, the plaintiff has approached the Central Board of Film
Certification, which issued the Certificate for Unrestricted Public Exhibition under Ex.
P2 for the film ROJA and it has also been indicated that the name of the producer is
the plaintiff only and the Film Publicity Clearance Committee of the South Indian Film
Chamber of Commerce has issued a Clearance Certificate under Ex. P3 dated
20.11.1992 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of publicity materials of the above
said film. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
plaintiff that under Ex. P4/agreement dated 25.01.1993, the plaintiff has accorded
right to the third defendant, namely Thiru. Muni Kanniah and also granted lease in
favour of the third defendant the video recording/copying rights of the said film for a
period of perpetual starting from the date of agreement and the plaintiff also agreed
to supply one good print of the film ROJA Telugu Colour 35 mm on loan basis for
making of U Matic purpose and the third defendant was also accorded right to
reproduce the said film on Video Cassettes and to distribute the same for the purpose
of viewing exhibition on Television in India.
15. It is the primordial submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
plaintiff that the right granted to it under Ex. P1/agreement by the second defendant
includes satellite rights also and under Ex. P4/agreement it has granted lease of
video recording and copying rights of the said film and thereby, the third defendant
is entitled to manufacture video cassettes containing the said film and distribute the
same for the purpose of viewing on television in India and the second defendant,
under Ex. P11, has addressed a letter to Vijaya Colour Labs dated 04.11.1992
informing that they have assigned the Telugu dubbing rights of the film ROJA in
favour of the plaintiff and on coming to know that attempts have been made to
telecast the dubbed version by the first defendant, legal notices have been sent to E
TV under Ex. P19 pointing out that the plaintiff is having satellite rights in respect of
Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA and thereby got right to telecast through
satellite. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has drawn the
attention of this Court to Ex. P21 letter dated 28.04.2007 from M/s. Vijaya Colour
Labs addressed to the plaintiff wherein it has been stated that the second defendant
has taken delivery of the negatives for editing purposes and inspite of repeated
reminders, they have been expressing their inability to hand over the negatives citing
certain issues to be settled between them and the plaintiff and they have not received
back the Telugu dubbed version assigned in favour of the third defendant, who in-

25-01-2019 (Page 6 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

turn entered into an agreement with other telecastors and unauthorizedly telecasted
the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA produced by the plaintiff and the said act
is per se illegal and contrary to the terms of the agreement. Attention of this Court
was also drawn to Ex. D1/agreement entered into between the second defendant and
the third defendant dated 19.12.1994 and Ex. D2/agreement entered into between
the fourth defendant and the third defendant dated 30.09.1994 and it is the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff that in and by
which the second defendant had created satellite rights for two times telecast in
respect of Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA in favour of the third defendant,
who in-turn assigned the same in favour of the plaintiff based on which telecasts
have been made and after assigning the rights to the plaintiff in respect of Telugu
dubbed version, the defendants have no right whatsoever to deal with the same in
the form of satellite rights and thus prays for decreeing of both the Suits.
1 6 . Mr. P.R. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant would
submit that admittedly the second defendant is the author and producer of the Tamil
version of the film ROJA and as per the practice prevalent, audio, video, terrestrial
and satellite rights are independent of each other and what was given to the plaintiff
by the second defendant is only the right to make Telugu dubbed version of the film
ROJA that too for telecasting the said film in the areas specified for a period of 25
years from the date of executing Ex. P1/agreement and invited the attention of this
Court to Ex. P1/agreement and would submit that no satellite rights have been
assigned to the plaintiff and as such, it is not open to them to claim that they have
been assigned satellite rights. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the second defendant that the plaintiff has given right to the third defendant to
make video cassettes of the Telegu dubbed version of the film ROJA and the third
defendant having found that satellite television rights have not been given to the
plaintiff, had approached the second defendant and the agreement under Ex. D1
came into being on 19.12.1994 wherein the second defendant had given rights to
telecast the Telugu dubbed version to be made by the third defendant for two times
only and it was only a limited right. Attention of this Court was also invited to the
cross examination of P.W. 1, wherein the plaintiff has made a crucial admission as to
the non-granting of satellite rights and on legal plea, it is the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the second defendant that the plaintiff has miserably
failed to produce any tenable evidence especially with regard to claim of damages in
C.S. No. 748 of 1997 and would further contend that both the Suits are frivolous and
vexatious and deserve dismissal with exemplary costs.
17. Mr. S. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1,4 and 5
would submit that at no point of time, the plaintiff was conferred with satellite rights
by the second defendant, who is the original producer of the film ROJA and what was
transferred/assigned to him was the right to dub/remake into Telugu language the
picture ROJA and telecast in a particular area for a period of 25 years and there is no
specific recital even in Ex. Pl as to the grant of satellite rights in favour of the
plaintiff. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1,
4 and 5 that the plaintiff is having restricted/limited copyright in respect of limited
areas and it cannot be extended to satellite rights as it is distinct and separate and in
any event, the first defendant did not violate any of the rights of the plaintiff and the
plaintiff has miserably failed to probablize its case with regard to infringement of
Telugu dubbed version for the reason that the Telugu dubbed version of the movie
ROJA have not been marked as an exhibit. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the defendants 1, 4 and 5 that the first defendant was belatedly
impleaded as a party and it has not been made clear the date on which amendments

25-01-2019 (Page 7 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

have came into effect and no worthwhile evidence has been adduced as to the
quantum of compensation claimed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 748 of 1997 and for
that no details has been produced as to the income earned by him and in the absence
of the same, damages claimed by the plaintiff cannot be given at all. The learned
counsel appearing for the defendants 1, 4 and 5, in support of his submissions,
placed reliance upon the following decisions:
"(i) Raj Video Vision v. Sun T.V. [2001-2-L.W. 232]
(ii) Ramalinga Chettiar v. P.K. Pattabiraman and Another
[MANU/SC/0132/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 96]."
18. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in response to the submission
made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, reiterated his submissions
and would contend that the second defendant knowing pretty well that the plaintiff is
the producer of the Telugu dubbed version of the movie ROJA has clandestinely got
the negative from Vijaya Colour Lab and gave it to the third defendant in terms of Ex.
Dl agreement and the third defendant, in-turn granted the right to telecast through
satellite to the first defendant under Ex. D2, based on which the Telugu dubbed
version was telecasted and admittedly the Telugu dubbed version was developed by
the plaintiff and as such, it has been infringed by the acts of the defendants and the
plaintiff, through overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, has sustained and
probablised it's case and prays for decreeing of both the Suits with costs.
1 9 . This Court paid it's best attention and anxious consideration to the rival'
submissions and also perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences.
Issue No. 2 and 3 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 and Issue No. 2 and 3 in C.S. No. 748 of
1997
20. In a nutshell, it is the specific case of the plaintiff in both suits that under Ex.
P1/agreement dated 16.06.1992, it had sole and exclusive rights for
dubbing/remaking and exhibiting Telugu dubbed version of the Tamil film ROJA and
it also includes satellite rights. Ex. Pl is the agreement dated 16.06.1992, entered
into between the second defendant, namely M/s. Kavithalayaa Productions Private
Limited and the plaintiff and as per the terms of the said agreement, the second
defendant has accorded sole and exclusive rights for dubbing/remaking into Telugu
language of the movie ROJA in favour of the plaintiff and to distribute the same in
the areas of entire Andhra Pradesh, Ceded Districts (Rayalaseema), Nizam, Coastal
Andhra Pradesh and Orissa for a period of 25 years from the date of the agreement
and the plaintiff has parted with a sum of Rs. 34.50 lakhs towards consideration in
favour of the second defendant. It is relevant to extract Clause Nos. 6, 7 & 8 of Ex.
P1/agreement:
"6. The Party of the Second Part hereby agreed that they will not distribute,
exhibit or exploit the Telugu dubbed/remade version of the said picture in
any other areas other than the allotted areas to them under this agreement.
7 . The Party of the Second Part is entitled to sub-lease, to appoint
distributors district-wise or otherwise for the territories granted to them
during and for the period under this agreement, including the 16mm rights of
the Telugu dubbed/remade version. However, the Party of the Second Part
will also be responsible for the due adherence for the terms of this
agreement.

25-01-2019 (Page 8 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

 8 . The Party of the Second Part has the right to exploit the Telugu
dubbed/remade version of the said picture in the Television in Andhra
Pradesh only and the Party of the First Part has the right over the Tamil
version of the said picture for exploitation in Television even in Andhra
Pradesh."
As per the above said clauses of Ex. P1/agreement, the plaintiff has exclusive right to
exploit Telugu dubbed/remade version of the picture ROJA in the Television in
Andhra Pradesh only and the second defendant, being the original producer and
copyright holder to make Telugu dubbed version of the said movie, entitled to make
any number of Telugu dubbed prints as and when required by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff after dubbing the said film into Telugu, got certificate from the Central Board
of Film Certification dated 20.11.1992 under Ex. P2, wherein it has been stated that
the plaintiff is the producer of the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA. The Film
Publicity Clearance Committee of the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce has
also issued a clearance certificate under Ex. P3 in respect of the Telugu dubbed
version of the film ROJA. The plaintiff, under Ex. P4/agreement dated 25.01.1993 has
permitted the third defendant in both the Suits to took it on lease the video
recording/copying rights of the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA for the
purpose of viewing in television in India. A careful scrutiny of the said agreement
would disclose that the third defendant was accorded the right to reproduce the
Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA on video cassettes and distribute the same
for the purpose of viewing in television in India and the consideration was fixed at
Rs. 1,62,000/-. The second defendant, under Ex. P11/letter dated 04.11.1992 has
informed M/s. Vijaya Colour Lab that they have assigned the Telugu dubbing rights of
the film ROJA in favour of the plaintiff and the Laboratory letter regarding the first
copy may be issued to the plaintiff for submission to Censors. The plaintiff, after
making Telugu dubbed version, has submitted the same to the Central Board of Film
Certification and it was returned for compliance under Ex. P12 and the deficiencies
pointed out by the CBFC have been complied with under Ex. P13.
2 1 . It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the third defendant was accorded
permission only to produce the video cassettes of the Telugu dubbed version of the
film ROJA for the purpose of viewing through television, however clandestinely
approached the second defendant and an agreement came into being under Ex. Dl
dated 19.12.1994, in and by which the third defendant was accorded satellite
television rights for the entire World including India for two times telecast of the film
ROJA. The third defendant, in-turn, has entered into an agreement under Ex. D2
dated 30.09.1994, wherein he has accorded and assigned exclusive satellite
television rights for multiple telecasts or dissemination, and to adopt any method of
delivery in the Asian Region during the period 02.12.1994 to 01.12.1995 of the
Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA and the same is in gross violation of Ex.
P1/agreement dated 16.06.1992, based on which it was accorded satellite rights also.
22. P.W. 1 has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was exhaustively
cross-examined on behalf of the first defendant in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 as well as
by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 4. P.W. 1 was the
Managing Director of the plaintiff company and he has spoken about the manner in
which the Telugu dubbed version would be made and he has not filed any document
to show that the telecast made by the first defendant was of the voice track and
dubbed version developed or made and denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has
right to telecast the film in Andhra Pradesh only. P.W. 1 would further state that for
the past 30 years, he is doing the same business and in the past 18 years, he is

25-01-2019 (Page 9 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

working in the plaintiff company and he knew about Cinema, video and satellite
distributions and also know copyright agreements by which rights are secured. He
also knows the second defendant company. P.W. 1 would further depose in the cross
examination that he has gone through the contents of the plaint in both suits before
signing it and the plaintiff has purchased Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA and
except Ex. P1/agreement, no other agreement was executed between the second
defendant and the plaintiff for the film ROJA and as per the clauses of Ex.
P1/agreement, exclusive right for dubbing/remaking of the said picture and
telecasting in the areas stated in the preamble for a period of 25 years and as per
Clause No. 6, the plaintiff has agreed that they will not distribute, exhibit or exploit
the Telugu dubbed/remade version of the said picture in any other areas than the
allotted areas to them under the agreement and further made an admission that the
plaintiff do not have the right to distribute the picture in any area other than the
allotted area. P.W. 1 further admitted that he is aware of satellite television and that
satellite television is not for a particular area but it covers the entire world and it can
be given for a particular period and not for a particular area and subsequently,
voluntarily answered that the area can also be fixed. P.W. 1 denied the suggestion
that apart from whatever right given under Ex. P1/agreement, rest of the rights
including satellite rights still vest with the producer and denied that the first
defendant has got any right under Ex. D1/agreement. Attention of P.W. 1 was also
drawn to Para 2 of the plaint in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994, wherein it has been stated
that the plaintiff has got limited copyright in respect of dubbed version of the picture
ROJA for the aforesaid areas for a period of 25 years and P.W. 1 answered that he do
not know about this, however agreed that he is bound by the rights given under Ex.
P1/agreement. A specific question was put to P.W. 1 as to the mention of satellite
rights in Ex. P1/agreement and he answered as follows: I agree that there is no
mention of Satellite Television Rights in Ex. Pl, but there is reference to television
rights and that is found in clause 8 of Ex. P1/agreement. In Clause 8 of Ex.
P1/agreement, it is stated that Television rights is confined only to Andhra Pradesh. I
agree that I have the right to exhibit the film in theaters and also in television only in
Andhra Pradesh.. I deny the suggestion that the television rights given in Andhra
Pradesh automatically excludes the Satellite Television.
23. The defence projected by the contesting defendants is that the satellite right and
terrestrial right is entirely different from each other and a specific right has to be
conferred/assigned in respect of satellite right also and it cannot be confined to a
particular area and since there is no recital or clause in Ex. P1/agreement as to the
conferment of satellite right and the claim made by the plaintiff that they are having
satellite right under Ex. Pl cannot be sustained and reliance was also placed upon the
judgment of this Court in Raj Video Vision v. Sun T.V. [ 2001-2-L.W.-232]. The facts
of the case in the above cited judgment read that the Suit was filed by Raj Video
Vision against Sun T.V. praying for a declaration that they are the absolute owner of
the limited copyright viz., 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and TV rights for the entire world in
the picture Oru Iniya Udayam Tamil Colour and Video and television rights for entire
India in the picture Nooravathu Naal Tamil Colour and for a permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs limited copyrights. The
defendants had filed written statements denying the averments made in the plaint
and it is their claim that satellite television right is an independent right.
24. This Court, on a careful scrutiny of pleadings, framed five issues and Issue No. 2
is whether limited copyright i.e., video rights includes TV and satellite rights and
Issue No. 4 is whether the defendant has acquired satellite rights in respect of the
Telugu version of the film ROJA. During the course of arguments in the Suits,

25-01-2019 (Page 10 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

reliance was placed upon the judgments in P. Thulasidas v. K. Vasanthakumari
[1991-1-LW.220], Maganlal Savani and Others v. Rupam Pictures (p) Ltd. and others
[MANU/MH/0411/2000 : AIR 2000 Bombay 416 : 2000 (20) PTC 556 (Bom)] and
Laxmi Video Theatre v. State of Haryana [MANU/SC/0355/1993 : AIR 1993 SC 2328].
Reliance was also placed upon Sections 18(2) and 19(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957
and this Court has recorded findings in paras 16, 17 and 19 and it is relevant to
extract the same:
"16....A reading of the said provision would make it clear that any
assignment of any copyright in any work should clearly indicate the rights
proposed to be assigned and hence the assignee cannot claim anything more
than the rights assigned to him under the concerned agreement. Under the
provisions of the Copyright Act, the right assigned may be either in existing
work or in future work, which may be either assigned wholly or partially, and
either jointly or subject to limitation. But the rights proposed to be assigned
have to be clearly indicated in the instrument of assignment. It is clear from
the provisions of S. 19 of the Act that the assignment of the copyright must
be in writing and the assignment must be in clear terms stating the rights
proposed to be assigned. The law has made it clear that no other mode of
assignment is valid. The statute specifically provides that the assignment of
the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor, and thus the
oral assignment is neither permissible nor valid. Unless and until the rights
proposed to be assigned are clearly indicated in the written instrument of
assignment, the assignee cannot make a claim in respect of a right which is
not assigned. In view of S. 19(2) of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff cannot
claim anything more than the rights assigned to them under the two
agreements to Ex. Pl and P2 relied upon by them.
17. Law has made it compulsory that any assignment of copyright should be
by way of a written instrument. The words shall specify the rights assigned
employed in S. 19(2) of the Act would clearly indicate that the rights
assigned in favour of the assignee should be specifically stated. The
legislative intent of employing these words specify the rights should be only
with an object to indicate that an assignee who is given a specific right
cannot use more or beyond the right that is assigned to him in h is favour.
Allowing an assignee of a copyright under an agreement to enlarge any right
already assigned would not only be detrimental and prejudicial to the interest
of the assignor in respect of the rights reserved by him but also would cause
infringement of the rights of the other assignees and it would also be against
the very legislative intent.
..............
19. The Court is unable to appreciate or countenance the above contention
of the plaintiffs side for more reasons than one. The court is of the view that
by making the contention, the plaintiff without requisite pleading and
necessary evidence has made a feeble attempt by seeking help under some
provisions of the Copyright Act. Nowhere the plaintiff has stated in the plaint
that they are entitled to telecast the pictures through satellite broadcast. As
stated above, the agreement under Exs. P1 and P2 relied on by the plaintiff,
do not speak of any specific assignment of the said rights. Comparison of the
agreements filed by the plaintiff and the defendant would clearly indicate that
what has been assigned to be plaintiff is only a limited right while what has

25-01-2019 (Page 11 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

 been assigned to the defendant is an unlimited right. While making an
assignment of copyright compulsorily written, the law would indicate that
any assignment of a copyright should be clearly indicted in the instrument.
Needless to say that an assignee of a copyright under the instrument cannot
claim anything more than what has been assigned to him. Even in the
agreements relied on by the plaintiff, they have treated the TV rights for
overseas territories/video rights as separate rights. What has been given to
the plaintiff under the said agreements was only the TV rights in overseas
territories and video rights. The plaintiff is unable to show how these specific
rights assigned in favour of the plaintiff under the agreements Exs. P1 and P2
were either affected or infringed. Thus it would be clear that the plaintiff who
was not assigned with the satellite broadcasting right specifically has come
forward to complain of infringement of that right. While cassettes are used
for home TV, U-matic tapes are used for satellite broadcasting. Satellite TV
broadcasting right is a separate, independent and specific right. It cannot be
disputed that the satellite television different from the ordinary territorial
television and satellite broadcasting can reach a very much larger audience
than any ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting crosses
many countries. Hence the Court may hasten to say that the plaintiff has no
cause of action for filing the suit, since the plaintiff cannot be permitted to
say the infringement of a right which is not available to him. Having agreed
upon for a restricted video right which the plaintiff themselves call as limited
copyright have now come forward to state that their right includes right to
exploit or telecast the pictures through satellite television. On the other hand
the rights assigned to the defendant as seen from the agreements relied on
by the defendant were specifically for broadcasting the films through
satellite. The Court is able to see force in the contention put forth by the
defendant's side that the satellite television was not even in contemplation in
the year 1986, when the plaintiff has entered into Exs. P1 and P2
agreements. Now the plaintiff cannot be permitted to say that what was
assigned to them under the said agreements would include satellite right
also,
(emphasis supplied)
25. Pleadings and evidence let-in in these suits are of no help to the plaintiff for the
reason that under Ex. P1/agreement, it was assigned with the right to make Telugu
dubbed version of the film ROJA. for a particular period in respect of restricted areas
and admittedly, there is no specific recital in Ex. P1/agreement that they were
assigned with satellite rights also. The testimony of P.W. 1 extracted above would
also indicate that he is aware of satellite television rights and it is not for a particular
area but covers the entire world and it can also be given for a particular period,
though in later portion of the evidence stated that area can also be fixed. When
attention of P.W. 1 was also drawn to contents of Ex. Pl, he would state that as per
the clauses of the agreement/Ex. P1, plaintiff was granted exclusive rights for
dubbing/remaking of the picture ROJA in the areas stated in the preamble for a
period of 25 years.
26. This Court in the judgment in Raj Video Vision v. Sun T.V. [2001-2-L.W.232],
after taking note of the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, has laid down
the proposition that assignment of any copyright in any work should clearly indicate
the rights proposed to be assigned and hence the assignee cannot claim anything
more than the rights assigned to him under the concerned agreement and Section

25-01-2019 (Page 12 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

19(2) of the Copyright Act also mandates that the rights assigned in favour of the
assignee should be specifically stated and it would also indicate that the assignee,
who is given a specific right, cannot use more or beyond the right that is assigned to
him in his favour and allowing an assignee of a copyright under an agreement to
enlarge any right already assigned would not only be detrimental and prejudicial
interest of the assignor in respect of the rights reserved by him but also would cause
infringement of the rights of the other assignees and it would also be against the
very legislative intent. It has been further held in the said decision that satellite TV
broadcasting is a separate, independent and specific right and it cannot be disputed
that the satellite television is different from the ordinary territorial television and
satellite broadcasting can reach a very much larger audience than any ordinary
territorial television and satellite broadcasting crosses many countries.
27. Admittedly, satellite rights have not been specifically conferred to the plaintiff
under Ex. P1/agreement and what was assigned to him is only the right to make
Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA produced by the second defendant, who is
admittedly the original copyright owner in respect of the said film. In the absence of
any specific recital in the agreement as to the assigning of satellite right, the plaintiff
cannot claim that the satellite right given to them under Ex. Pl has been infringed.
P.W. 1, who is the Managing Director of plaintiff company and in the relevant field
for quite number of years, admitted that there is no mention of satellite rights under
Ex. Pl and also agreed that the plaintiff is having right to exploit the film for viewing
only in Andhra Pradesh and denied that the rights given in Andhra Pradesh
automatically includes satellite rights and therefore, this Court is of the view that
unless the satellite television right is specifically conferred and assigned in favour of
the plaintiff, it cannot be said or claimed that it is having such a right, which was
infringed by the contesting defendants.
28. Therefore, Issue No. 2 and 3 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 and Issue No. 2 and 3 in
C.S. No. 748 of 1997 are answered in negative against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994
29. Under Ex. P1/agreement, the plaintiff was conferred with the sole and exclusive
right to dub/remake into Telugu language the movie ROJA to limited areas for a
period of 25 years and this Court, while answering Issue Nos. 2 and 3, has given a
categorical finding that satellite rights have not been specifically conferred or
assigned in favour of the plaintiff. P.W. 1, being the Managing Director of the Plaintiff
company, has also admitted that as per Clauses of Ex. Pl, exclusive rights for
dubbing/remaking into Telugu version of the picture ROJA was given to the areas
stated in the preamble for a period of 25 years. The plaintiff, on account of the right
given to the second defendant under Ex. P1/agreement, in respect of the Telugu
dubbed version of the Tamil film ROJA obtained Censorship Certificate under Ex. P2
as well as Clearance Certificate under Ex. P3. In Ex. P2, it has been stated that
plaintiff is the producer of the film ROJA Telugu colour. The learned counsel
appearing for the plaintiff would submit that as per the agreement under Ex. Pl,
entered into between the second defendant and the third defendant, the third
defendant was assigned with the satellite television rights for two times telecast of
the full picture ROJA (Telugu) through satellite television and the third defendant in-
turn has entered into an agreement with the fourth defendant under Ex. D2, wherein
the first defendant accordingly was assigned exclusive satellite television rights or
multiple telecasts or dissemination of the cinematographic film ROJA (Telugu) and
the telecast was made by using the Telugu dubbed version made by the plaintiff and

25-01-2019 (Page 13 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

thereby the contesting defendants in collusion with each other has infringed the
Telugu dubbed version of the said film. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that
there is no specific averment to that effect available in the plaint in both the Suits.
P.W. 1 was specifically questioned in that regard and he answered as follows:
"I do not know whether we have filed the Telugu dubbed version of the film
Roja done by us before this Hon'ble Court. I do not remember whether I have
filed the video of the Satellite telecast of the Telugu dubbed film Roja by Dl
and D4. It is true that only on a comparison of our script of dubbed film as
well as the video of the satellite telecast done by the defendants 1 and 4, we
can say whether they have violated the rights given by us. I deny the
suggestion that there was no violation of our Telugu dubbed rights by
defendants 1 and 4 and that is the reason why we have not produced the
same."
The plaintiff can claim copyright over the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA
under Ex. Pl and it's claim is confined only to such a right.
30. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff made a valiant attempt by stating
that telecast done by the defendants 1 and 4 of the Telugu dubbed version of the film
ROJA is that of the plaintiff and the third defendant did not independently/separately
dub the Telugu version of the said film. However, it is to be pointed out at this
juncture that in the light of the categorical admission of P.W. 1, extracted above and
in the absence of any acceptable evidence as to the infringement of the copyright
relating to Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA produced by the plaintiff, it
cannot be said that the contesting defendants had violated/infringed such a right of
the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is the copyright holder of
the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA under Ex, P1, but at the same time holds
that such a right of the plaintiff has not been infringed by the contesting defendants
in the absence of any acceptable evidence.
31. Therefore, Issue No. 1 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997
32. The fifth defendant came to be impleaded as party to the Suit, vide order dated
16.06.2000 in A. Nos. 1801 and 1802 of 2000. The learned counsel appearing for the
fifth defendant has drawn the attention of this Court to proviso to Section 21 of the
Limitation Act and would submit that the claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by
limitation and in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the decision in
Ramalingam Chettiar v. P.K. Pattabiraman and Another [MANU/SC/0132/2001 :
(2001) 4 SCC 96], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the
scope of Section 21 of the Limitation Act and it is relevant to extract para 6 of the
said decision:
"6. Learned counsel for the respondent referred the proviso to Section 21 of
the Limitation Act and on the strength thereof argued that even if the
application for impleadment of State of Tamil Nadu was allowed on
11.6.1979 the said order has to be understood as if impleadment of
defendant No. 2 was with effect from the date of filing the suit. There is no
substance in the argument. Section 21 of the Limitation Act contemplates two
situations one under the substantive provision which provides that where
after filing of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the
suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been brought on the day when

25-01-2019 (Page 14 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

 he was added or substituted as a party in the suit. The second situation
contemplated under the proviso to the substantive provision is where the
court is satisfied that a new plaintiff or defendant was omitted to be added or
substituted due to a mistake in good faith, the court may direct that the suit,
as regards the newly added or substituted party, shall be deemed to have
been instituted on any earlier date. Thus, under the proviso, if the court is
satisfied, it can direct that the suit as regards newly added or substituted
plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier
date. In such a case, the court after substituting or adding a party in the suit
is required to pass a separate/further order that the suit as regards the newly
added defendant or plaintiff shall be deemed to have been instituted with
effect from the date the suit was laid. Merely adding or substituting a plaintiff
or defendant by the court is not enough. In the absence of any order that the
impleadment of newly added or substituted party shall take effect from the
date of institution of a suit, the period of limitation so far as the newly added
or substituted shall run from the date of their impleadment in the suit. We
have looked into the records but do not find any order having passed under
the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act that the impleadment of the
State of Tamil Nadu would take effect from the date of institution of the suit.
In the absence of such an order by the trial court, the suit filed by the
respondent was barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 59 of the
Act."
As per the ratio laid down in the above cited decision, in the absence of any order
that the impleadment of newly added or substituted party shall take effect from the
date of institution of a suit, the period of limitation so far as the newly added or
substituted shall run from the date of their impleadment in the suit.
33. The plaint in C.S. No. 748 of 1997 was presented on 09.12.1997 and came to be
numbered during December 1997 itself. The fifth defendant came to be impleaded,
vide order dated 16.06.2000, within just six months prior to the expiry of three
years. No doubt, the learned Master while ordering impleadment, did not say
anything as to the date of effecting any impleadment i.e., the date of the Suit or the
date of the order in terms of proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act. In the light
of the fact that impleadment of the fifth defendant came to be done within three
years from the date of the Suit, this Court is of the view that the Suit is not barred by
limitation so far as the fifth defendant is concerned.
34. Therefore, Issue No. 4 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997 is answered in favour of the
plaintiff.
Issue No. 4 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994
35. Admittedly, prior to institution of the Suit, the alleged offending telecast through
satellite has been made and this Court while answering Issue Nos. 2 and 3 in C.S.
No. 1823 of 1994 and Issue Nos. 2 and 3 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997, has given a
finding that the plaintiff have not been conferred with satellite rights and in the
absence of such a right in favour of the plaintiff, does not entitle it to get the decree
for permanent injunction as prayed for.
36. Therefore, Issue No. 4 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 is answered in negative against
the plaintiff.
Issue No. 6 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997

25-01-2019 (Page 15 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR

37. Since the plaintiff has not been conferred/assigned with satellite rights in respect
of the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA, it does not have any cause of action
to file the Suit and therefore, Issue No. 6 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997 is answered in
negative against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997
38. In the light of the findings given by this Court above, it is of the view that the
plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1 Crore towards damages. It is to
be noted at this juncture that the plaintiff has failed to probablise and substantiate
their case about acquirement and assignment of satellite rights and also that the
Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA produced by them has been infringed by the
contesting defendants. Therefore, it is not entitled to damages as claimed by them.
Hence, Issue No. 1 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997 is answered against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997
39. In the light of the findings given in Issue No. 1 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994, this
Court holds that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plaintiff by telecasting
the Telugu dubbed version of the film ROJA. Hence, Issue No. 5 in C.S. No. 748 of
1997 is answered against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5 in C.S. No. 1823 of 1994 and Issue No. 7 in C.S. No. 748 of 1997
40. In the light of the reasons assigned above, the plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief in these suits. In the result, both Suits are dismissed with costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

25-01-2019 (Page 16 of 16) www.manupatra.com JAGDISH SAGAR