LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-11

RISHI RAJ Vs. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD.

Decided On November 09, 2021
RISHI RAJ Appellant
V/S
Saregama India Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking an ex-parte ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant, its directors, officers etc. from licensing or exploiting in any manner, including through physical formats such as CDs, DVDs, magnetic tapes, pen drives and/or on the internet through their website www.saregama.com or any other websites/software application, the copyrighted works viz. sound recordings (songs) incorporated in various cinematographic films as well as audio visuals of such songs.

(2.) The accompanying suit is filed by the plaintiff stating that it is carrying on the business of film production, distribution and exhibition under the name and style of "RAJ RISHI FILM". Apart from the film production, distribution and exhibition, the plaintiff is also said to be engaged in the business of acquiring negative rights of various films from different producers which are approximately 250 in number. However, it is stated that the present suit is confined to only infringement caused by the defendant to144 films which are stated in para 2 of the plaint. It is urged that in terms of the agreements of the respective producers/negative right holders, it is only the plaintiff alone who is entitled to deal with the said films and is the copyright holder of the said films.

(3.) Regarding the defendant, it is stated that they have engaged in the act of piracy/copyright infringement, inasmuch as, it is involved in the unauthorised/unlicensed exploitation/licensing of sound recording as well as audio-visuals of such songs etc. It is stated that the plaintiff having acquired negative rights of such films, it is the plaintiff who alone is the recorded owner of the aforesaid films and is the copyright holder of all the rights flowing from the said films which includes the performing copyrights in its story, songs, music etc. It is stated that the defendant has been misrepresenting itself to be the owner/copyright holder of the sound recordings as well as audio visuals of such songs incorporated in the aforesaid films rights of which exclusively vest with the plaintiff alone. It is further stated that a notice dated 29.04.2017 was sent to the defendant to render accounts of the amount earned by the defendant by usage of composition in musical works and lyrics and other losses were also sought. The defendant sent a reply dated 19.05.2017 denying the stand of the plaintiff.