MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. FILM CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying for an action against the defendants and for issuance of consequential orders so as to purge the contempt committed by the defendants-contemners by violating the order of the Court dated 21.9.1992.

(2.) Suit No. 2680/90 was filed by the petitioner impleading the respondentscontemners as defendants. The case of the plaintiKff was that to boost its image in public and amongstits customers and patterns.it had decided to have a video film prepared with the title 'Excellence is its byline". The film depicted mainly the petitioner's manufacturing operations, vehicles manufactured, achievements made in the field of automobile industry etc. The film was prepared by the defendants. The defendants were asked to hand over the film to the plaintiff- petitioner but they failed to do so in spite of copyright in the U-matic film vesting in the plaintiff-company. The defendants did not appear to contest the suit inspite of having been noticed. After receiving ex-parte evidence, the Court passed a 35 decree on 21.9.92 in the following terms :- "I hereby pass ex parte decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that copyright in the U-matic film "Excellence is its by line" vests in the plaintiff-company. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintf and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from using in any manner, deal with or create any right or to part with the said U-matic film to any person. A decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to hand over the master print of the U-matic film and negatives etc to the plaintiff-company."

(3.) Though a period of about 2 years has lapsed by this time, the defendants have not complied with the command of the mandatory injunction issued by the Court.