MILESTONE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LTD Vs. ANAMIKA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of Motion is made returnable after six weeks.

(2.) This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance of the obligations by defendant No. 1 under the Agreement dated 30th of March 1998 and for delivery of the third album viz. "Kamal Ho Gaya" to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also seek an injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining defendant No. 1 from in any manner committing the breach of the negative covenants contained in the agreement dated 30th March 1998. In short, the case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 has entered into the agreement dated 30th March 1998. According to the term of that agreement, defendant No. 1 was to deliver the third album containing songs to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs have exclusive right to get the third album from defendant No. 1. She has delivered two albums which have been published. However, defendant No. 1 proposes to publish her third album through defendant No. 2. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, this amounts to breach of the agreement dated 30th of March 1998. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have a copyright in the album by defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 amounts to infringement of the copyright of the plaintiffs. According to defendant No. 1, this is a suit for specific performance of the agreement in relation to movable property. The loss suffered is capable of being compensated in terms of money and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to specific performance of the contract. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction.

(3.) So far as the contention of the plaintiffs regarding the copyright is concerned, according to defendant No. 1, there is no assignment of copyright in the third album in favour of the plaintiffs, because in terms of Clause 4.2 of the agreement the album is to be accepted by the plaintiffs, only after it is presented by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs and they have right to reject the same. According to defendant No. 1 thus there is no assignment of copyright in the album in favour of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that assignment of copyright can only be an identifiable work. The description of the third album in the agreement is vague and, therefore, it cannot be said that any copyright in the album is assigned to the plaintiffs. It is urged that the agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 is an unconscionable agreement between the parties who are not on equal footing and, therefore, it is unreasonable to grant specific performance of such an agreement.