Full Judgment Text
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 9 October, 2018
+ CS (COMM) 1163/2018 & I.A. 13817/2018
JUNGLEE PICTURES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati
Kohli and Ms. Aarushi Tiku,
Advocates. (M:9818690207)
versus
JOY THOMAS PROPRIETOR OF
M/S JUBILEE PICTURES ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta with Mr. Ankur
Kulkarni, Mr. Susheel Cyriac, Mr.
Chacko Simon nad Mr. Rahul
Kukreja, Advocates. (M:9819876406
& 9920753202)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The Plaintiff, claiming to be the producer of the Hindi feature film
‘BADHAAI HO’ has filed the present suit. The film is slated to be released
th
on 19 October, 2018. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant,
who claims that the Plaintiff’s film infringes his copyright in the script and
movie ‘PAVITHRAM’. The plaint seeks the following reliefs:
“ i. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining
the Defendants, their associates, agents, employees,
servants, representatives and /or anyone acting on
their behalf or connected with them from in any
manner (directly or indirectly) extending any
groundless threats of any Copyright Infringement
CS (COMM) 1163/2018 Page 1 of 4
against the Plaintiff and accordingly declare the
Notice dated 28.09.2018 by the Defendant to the
Plaintiff as null and void, and unenforceable and
consequently permanently restrain the Defendants
from instituting the Copyright Right infringement
suit/proceedings in respect of Plaintiffs Copy rights in
the cinematographic film "Badhaai Ho";
ii. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining
the Defendants, their associates, agents, employees,
servants, representatives and /or anyone acting on
their behalf or connected with them from in any
manner (directly or indirectly) creating any hindrance
in respect of the release and commercial exploitation
of the cinematographic film "Badhaai Ho;”
2. The relief sought is in the nature of a suit seeking injunction against
groundless threats under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit
th
was listed on 5 October, 2018 on which date this Court had issued
summons and notices to the Defendant returnable for today.
3. Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned counsel for the Defendant, upon
instructions, submits that his client has filed a copyright infringement suit
seeking injunction and declaration in the District Court at Kottayam, Kerala.
The prayers in the said suit are as under:
“ a) Declare that the movie ‘Badhaai Ho’
produced by the defendants 1 to 8 is a copyright
infringement of the plaintiff’s movie ‘Pavithram’, or a
portion of it, and a Hindi adaption of Pavithram’s
screenplay/movie-script and story, or a portion of it;
b) Pass a permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining the defendants from releasing, screening,
exhibiting, broadcasting, streaming or otherwise
disseminating to public in any manner, the movie
‘Badhaai Ho’ or any portion of it, without obtaining
license from the plaintiff.”
CS (COMM) 1163/2018 Page 2 of 4
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Defendant that the
suit was listed today before the District Court at Kottayam and the Plaintiff
herein has entered appearance. The order passed by the Court is not yet
available, however, as per his instructions, the Court has directed that the
injunction application would be considered, after viewing of the films on
th
13 October, 2018.
5. The Defendant also challenges the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
on the ground that no cause of action has arisen herein. Mr. Jayant Mehta,
however, upon instructions, undertakes that his client would not write to any
exhibitor or distributor of the Plaintiff, issuing any threats in respect of the
film `BADHAAI HO’ and his client would be bound by the orders that may
be passed in the copyright infringement suit.
6. In view of the fact that the Defendant has preferred the suit for
infringement of copyright, groundless threats no longer survive, as per
Section 60 of the Copyright Act, which reads as under:
“ Section 60 Remedy in the case of groundless threat
of legal proceedings. – Where any person claiming to
be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars,
advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other
person with any legal proceedings or liability in
respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any
person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding
anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963, institute a declaratory suit that the alleged
infringement to which the threats related was not in
fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person
making such threats and may in such suit –
(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance
of such threats; and
(b) recover such damages, if any, as he has
sustained by reason of such threats:
CS (COMM) 1163/2018 Page 3 of 4
Provided that this section does not apply if the person
making such threats, with due diligence, commences
and prosecutes an action for infringement of the
copyright claimed by him.”
7. The Proviso to the section extracted above is clear to the effect that if
an infringement action is filed, Section 60 would not apply. Under these
circumstances, the present suit is disposed of taking the said statement on
behalf of the Defendant as recorded in paragraph 5 above, on record and
accepting the same. The same is without prejudice to the objection of the
Defendant relating to territorial jurisdiction. Parties shall, however, be free
to communicate the orders, if any, that may be passed in the said copyright
infringement suit.
8. The suit is disposed of in the above terms. All pending I.As. also
stand disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
OCTOBER 09, 2018/ dk
CS (COMM) 1163/2018 Page 4 of 4