In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA MFA NO.4030 OF 2014 (IPR) AND MFA NO.4039 of 2014 (IPR) BETWEEN: 1. Ms.Pooja Gandhi D/o Pawan Kumar Gandhi Aged about 30 years Currently residing at No.5021, 2 nd Floor, Tower No.5 Prestige South Ridge Hoskerehalli, BSK 3 rd Stage Bangalore – 560 085. 2. M/s.Pooja Gandhi Projection No.5021, 2 nd Floor, Tower No.5 Prestige South Ridge Hoskerehalli, BSK 3 rd Stage Bangalore – 560 085 Represented by its partner Ms.Poojar Gandhi. ... APPELLANTS COMMON (By Shri.Sajan Poovayya, Shri.Ajith Achappa and Shri.P.B.Achappa, Advocates) AND: 1. Smt.Bhagya Krishnamurthy W/o M.S.Krishnamurthy 2 Aged about 47 years No.10, 10 th Main Road Ganesha Block, Nandini Layout Bangalore – 560 096. 2. Mrs.Joythi Gandhi W/o Pawan Kumar Gandhi Aged about 50 years Producer R/at No.104, Roshan Palace Kathriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazaar Bangalore – 560 085. 3. Mrs.B.S.Vijayanthi Producer C/o No.104, Roshan Palace Kathriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazaar Bangalore – 560 085. 4. B.Satish Pradhan Director C/o No.104, Roshan Palace Kathriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage Behind Big Bazaar Bangalore – 560 085. To the best of the knowledge to the appellant the respondent No.2 is currently residing at No.5021, 2 nd Floor, Tower No.5, Prestige South Ridge, Hoskerehalli BSK 3 rd Stage, Bangalore 560 085. ... RESPONDENTS COMMON (By Smt.Pramila Nesargi, Senior Counsel for Shri.Sandeep.R, Advocate for R1 Shri.Kiran Kumar and Shri.L.Chandrashekar, Advocates for R2 and R4 3 Appeal against R3 is dismissed as not pressed v/o dated 23.6.14) MFA No.4030/2014 is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 10.6.2014 passed on IA No.2 in O.S.No.3972/2014 on the file of 18 th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, allowing IA No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, r/w Sec 151 of CPC. MFA No.4039/2014 is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 10.6.2014 passed on IA No.3 in O.S.No.3972/2014 on the file of 18 th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, allowing IA No.3 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. These appeals coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT These Miscellaneous First Appeals are directed against the common interlocutory order of the trial Court (XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore) passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) in O.S.No.3972/2014. 4 These appeals have been preferred by defendants No.1 and 5 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall also be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 2. The facts germane to the disposal of these appeals are that the 1 st respondent, who is the plaintiff, has filed the aforesaid suit seeking a declaration that the film ‘Abhinetri’ is an infringement of copyright of the plaintiff’s book ‘Abhinetriya Antharanga’. She has also sought relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting, releasing, displaying, communicating to the public anywhere in the world the film ‘Abhinetri’, which according to the plaintiff, has been made by infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in her literary work ‘Abhinetriya Antharanga’. Along with the plaint, 1 st respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 seeking an interlocutory order by way of an injunction restraining the defendants from exhibiting, releasing, displaying, communicating to the public any where in 5 the world about the film ‘Abhinetri’, pending disposal of the suit. I.A.No.3 was filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order for seizure of all reels, script, film prints and original spools of the film ‘Abhinetri’. The trial Court after hearing both sides allowed those applications and restrained the defendants from exhibiting, releasing, displaying, communicating to the public any where in the world the film ‘Abhinetri’, which according to that Court has infringed the copyright of the plaintiff’s book ‘Abhinetriya Antharanga’, pending disposal of the suit. A direction was also issued on I.A.No.3 to seize all reels, script, film prints and original spools of the film, ‘Abhinetri’, pending disposal of suit. 3. Being aggrieved by those orders, defendants 1 and 5 before the trial Court have filed these appeals. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Senior Counsel for respondent 6 1 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and perused the material on record. 5. During the course of submission, initially learned Counsel for respondent No.4 offered to produce the script of the film ‘Abhinetri’, as according to him, the trial Court had opined that the script had been withheld before the trial Court and that may have been one of the reasons for the trial Court to issue the order of injunction. However, during further arguments in the matter, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 withdrew the application for production of the script of the film. 6. During the hearing of arguments, this Court felt that having regard to the nature of the intellectual property involved in the case, namely copy right in a literary work i.e., the book and the fact that the appellants herein intend to complete the shooting of the film ‘Abhinetri’, which has now been restrained by the impugned orders and having regard to the 7 nature of the order passed by the trial Court including observations made therein, the applications filed by the respondent – plaintiff could be reconsidered in light of the trial Court having the benefit of viewing the film ‘Abhinetri’ so as to come to a conclusion on the applications. 7. Though learned Counsel for the appellants sought to draw my attention to certain provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957 and contended that at this stage, the trial Court ought not to have granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellants from releasing the film but having regard to the fact that the appellants are willing to submit before the trial court a copy of the disc of the film for the benefit of the trial court so as to come to a right conclusion on the applications filed by the respondent – plaintiff, I am of the considered view that, at this stage, the impugned order would only call for modification so as to enable the learned trial Judge and parties to have a viewing of the film for the purpose of reconsidering 8 the applications filed by the respondent – plaintiff, without opining either way on the merits of the matter. In that view of the matter, the impugned order would call for modification. 8. It is brought to my notice that the next date of hearing before the trial Court is on 30.06.2014. On that day, the appellants are at liberty to produce the disc of the film ‘Abhinetri’ for viewing the same by the parties along with their respective counsel as well as the learned trial Court Judge on 01.07.2014 or on any other date at a convenient time and venue to be ordered by the trial Judge. In addition, the trial Court may also view the film in the absence of the parties and their counsel in the suit for a better appreciation of the controversy in question. On viewing the film, the trial Court to reconsider IA No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. The defendants, before the trial Court, are permitted take all steps for completion of film ‘Abhinetri’. The respondent – plaintiff shall not interfere in any manner in that process. 9 9. In view of the application I.A.No.2 to be reconsidered by the trial Court, the order passed on I.A.No.3 is set aside. That application could be considered in accordance with law along with I.A.No.2 10. Having regard to the fact that the release of the film is restrained by the trial Court and that order is continued by this Court till the disposal of IA Nos.2 & 3, it is in the interest of justice, that those applications be re-considered in an expeditious manner and within a period of three weeks from 01.07.2014. With the aforesaid observations and directions, MFA No.4030/2014 stands disposed and MFA No.4039/2014 stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All contentions on both sides are kept open. Parties to bear their own costs. 10 In view of disposal of appeals, I.A.No.1/14 for stay, filed in both the appeals, would not survive for consideration and they stand disposed. Sd/- JUDGE Prs* .