Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Unauthorized Distribution of Marathi Dramatical Work. Copyright in cinematograph film of dramatic work vests in producer, and unauthorized sale of video copies constitutes infringement under Copyright Act, 1957.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 57
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiffs, Mr. Dilip Jadhav (plaintiff no.1) and Marathi Natyavyavasayik Nirmata Sangh (plaintiff no.2), filed a suit seeking to restrain the defendants from dealing with video copies of the cinematograph film of the Marathi drama 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar'. Plaintiff no.2 is an association of Marathi drama producers registered under the Public Trust Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Defendant no.1 is the Chairperson of plaintiff no.2, and defendant no.2 is a distributor of video films and CDs. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant no.1, in collusion with defendant no.2, was selling video copies of the film without authorization, thereby infringing the plaintiffs' copyright. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion seeking appointment of a Court Receiver and an interim injunction. The court examined the facts and found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of ownership of copyright in the cinematograph film. The balance of convenience was in favor of granting an injunction to prevent further infringement. The court appointed the Court Receiver as receiver of the infringing video copies with powers under Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC. The defendants were restrained from dealing with the video copies pending the disposal of the suit.

Headnote

A) Copyright Law - Cinematograph Film - Ownership - Section 2(d)(vi), Section 17, Copyright Act, 1957 - The plaintiff no.2, an association of Marathi drama producers, claimed copyright in the cinematograph film of the drama 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar'. The court held that the producer of the cinematograph film is the first owner of copyright under Section 17, and the plaintiff no.2, being the producer, had a prima facie case of ownership. (Paras 1-5)

B) Copyright Law - Infringement - Interim Injunction - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court found that the defendants were selling video copies of the film without authorization, which amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright. The balance of convenience was in favor of granting an injunction to prevent further infringement pending trial. (Paras 6-10)

C) Civil Procedure - Receiver - Appointment - Order XL Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court appointed the Court Receiver as receiver of the infringing video copies with powers under Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC to take possession and prevent further distribution. (Para 11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with video copies of the cinematograph film of the Marathi drama 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar'.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the Notice of Motion and appointed the Court Receiver as receiver of all cassettes, ACDs, VCDs, and DVDs of the cinematograph film of the programme 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar' with all powers under Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC. The defendants were restrained from dealing with, selling, reproducing, or making copies of the said film pending the disposal of the suit.

Law Points

  • Copyright in cinematograph film vests in producer
  • unauthorized reproduction and distribution of video copies of dramatic work constitutes infringement
  • interim injunction granted to protect copyright pending trial
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (10) 56

Notice of Motion No.727 of 2003 in Suit No.679 of 2003

2005-10-07

S.U. Kamdar

Mr. Milind Vasudeo, Vaibav Joglekar, Hemant Parekh for plaintiffs; Mr. H.W. Kane for defendant no.1; Ms. Sheetal Malvankar for defendant no.2

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for copyright infringement and interim injunction

Remedy Sought

Appointment of Court Receiver and interim injunction restraining defendants from dealing with video copies of the cinematograph film of the drama 'Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar'

Filing Reason

Alleged unauthorized sale and distribution of video copies of the film by defendants, infringing plaintiffs' copyright

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case of copyright ownership in the cinematograph film of the drama. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting an interim injunction. Whether the appointment of a Court Receiver is necessary to protect the subject matter of the suit.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that they are the producers and owners of the copyright in the cinematograph film, and defendants are selling unauthorized copies. Defendants contended that they had rights to distribute the film, but the court found no evidence of authorization.

Ratio Decidendi

The producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of copyright under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Unauthorized reproduction and distribution of video copies of the film constitutes infringement. In a copyright infringement suit, the court may grant an interim injunction to prevent further infringement pending trial, and appoint a receiver to take possession of infringing copies.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Notice of Motion has been taken out for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as receiver of all the cassettes, ACDs, VCDs and DVDs of the cinematograph film made of the programme ’Ala Bahar Lavanila / Ala Lavanila Bahar’. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff no.2 which is known as Marathi Natyavyavasayik Nirmata Sangh, an Association registered under the Public Trust Act, 1950 and under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed Suit No.679 of 2003 seeking relief for copyright infringement. They took out Notice of Motion No.727 of 2003 for appointment of a Court Receiver and interim injunction. The motion was heard and disposed of by this judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XV Rule 1, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Order XL Rule 1
  • Copyright Act, 1957: Section 2(d)(vi), Section 17
  • Public Trust Act, 1950:
  • Societies Registration Act, 1860:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Unauthorized Distribution of Marathi Dramatical Work. Copyright in cinematograph film of dramatic work vests in producer, and unauthorized sale of video copies constitutes infringement under Copyrig...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows MSRTC's Petition, Sets Aside Condonation of Delay in Unfair Labour Practice Complaint. Pendency of Criminal Case and Acquittal Not Sufficient Cause to Condone Delay in Challenging Departmental Punishment Under MRTU & PULP Act...