Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Sunil Darshan, filed a commercial IP suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the defendant, Saregama India Limited, for infringement of copyright in songs forming part of films produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed title through an assignment from his predecessor-in-title, Shree Krishna Pictures. The defendant claimed to be a perpetual world assignee of the copyright in those songs. The plaintiff alleged that despite requests, the defendant failed to produce complete copies of the alleged assignment agreements and instead filed a suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, before the Delhi High Court (Commercial IP Suit No.327 of 2019) seeking an injunction against the plaintiff from issuing threats. The plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion seeking inspection of originals and photocopies of five documents listed in the prayer clause. The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to inspection of those documents before filing his written statement. The court held that the documents were relevant for the adjudication of the copyright ownership issue and that the plaintiff had a right to inspect them. The court allowed the motion and directed the defendant to produce the documents for inspection within two weeks, with the plaintiff to bear copying charges. The court also granted the defendant liberty to apply for return of the documents after inspection.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Discovery and Inspection - Order XI Rule 1 CPC - Right to Inspection Before Written Statement - Plaintiff sought inspection of documents referred to by defendant in plaint of another suit - Court held that documents are relevant for determining copyright ownership and plaintiff has right to inspect them before filing written statement - Held that inspection should be granted to enable plaintiff to effectively plead his case (Paras 4-6).
B) Copyright Law - Section 60 Copyright Act, 1957 - Suit for Groundless Threat - Defendant's suit under Section 60 does not preclude plaintiff from seeking inspection of documents that are relevant to his own suit for infringement - Held that documents sought are relevant and inspection must be allowed (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit is entitled to inspection of documents relied upon by the defendant in a related suit before filing written statement, and whether such documents are relevant for the adjudication of the plaintiff's claim.
Final Decision
Notice of Motion is allowed. Defendant to produce the five documents for inspection by the plaintiff within two weeks from today. Plaintiff to pay copying charges. After inspection, defendant may apply for return of documents.
Law Points
- Copyright Act
- 1957
- Section 60
- Order XI Rule 1 CPC
- Discovery and Inspection
- Relevance of documents
- Right to inspection before written statement
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 100
Notice of Motion No.2470 of 2019 in Commercial IP Suit No.1314 of 2019
Mr. Shyam Kapadia i/b H.K. Law Associates for the Plaintiff, Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amey Nargolkar a/w Ms. Smriti Yadav and Mr. Shwetank Tripathi i/b Khaitan & Co. for the Defendant
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Commercial IP suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of copyright in songs, with a notice of motion seeking inspection of documents.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff seeks inspection of originals and photocopies of five documents listed in prayer clause (a) of the notice of motion.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff claims copyright in songs of films he produced; defendant claims to be perpetual world assignee; plaintiff wants to inspect defendant's assignment agreements to verify title.
Previous Decisions
Defendant filed Commercial IP Suit No.327 of 2019 before Delhi High Court under Section 60 of Copyright Act, 1957 seeking injunction against plaintiff from issuing threats.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to inspection of documents relied upon by the defendant in a related suit before filing written statement?
Whether the documents sought are relevant for the adjudication of the plaintiff's claim?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that the documents are relevant to the suit and necessary for him to effectively plead his case.
Defendant opposed inspection on grounds that the documents are not relevant and that plaintiff should file written statement first.
Ratio Decidendi
Documents sought by the plaintiff are relevant for the adjudication of the copyright ownership issue in the suit. The plaintiff has a right to inspect them before filing his written statement to effectively plead his case. The pendency of a suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking inspection of documents relevant to his own suit.
Judgment Excerpts
This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Plaintiff in a commercial IP suit. It seeks inspection of originals and photocopies of five documents listed in prayer clause -(a) of the notice of motion.
The suit is for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing upon the Plaintiff’s registered copyright in songs forming part of films which the Plaintiff has produced and in which he claims copyright.
The Plaintiff relies on agreements of assignment executed by his predecessor in respect of these movies.
It is the Plaintiff’s grievance that instead of complying with his requisitions, the Defendant has proceeded to file a suit before Delhi High Court, being Commercial IP Suit No.327 of 2019, under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1967 inter alia seeking a perpetual injunction against the Plaintiff herein from issuing any threat of legal proceedings against the Defendant or to any of its licensees in respect of the song recordings and underlying musical and literary work in the subject movies.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Commercial IP Suit No.1314 of 2019 for copyright infringement. Defendant filed Commercial IP Suit No.327 of 2019 before Delhi High Court under Section 60 of Copyright Act. Plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No.2470 of 2019 seeking inspection of five documents. The motion was heard and decided on 27 January 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Copyright Act, 1957: 60
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI Rule 1
