1 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.

doc

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION NOTICEOFMOTION(L)NO.719OF2012 IN SUIT(L)NO.540OF2012 RupalliP .Shah versus AdaniWilmerLtd&Ors Mr.R.M.Kadam,Sr.Adva/wA.S.Kamatfortheplaintiff. Mr.M.R.BayafordefendantNo.1. Mr.ViragTulzapurkar,Sr.Adva/wMr.ChakrapaniMishraandR.A.Iyeri/by M/s.Khaitan&CofordefendantNo.2. CORAM RESERVEDON PRONOUNCEDON JUDGMENT: :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. :24thAPRIL2012. :8thMAY2012. ..Defendants ..Plaintiff

SinceentirematerialisplacedbeforetheCourt,atthisadinterim

stageitself,theMotionisheardfinallyanddisposedoffbythisorder.

2}

This Notice of Motion is filed by the plaintiff Rupalli P Shah .

2 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

claiming to be a Executrix of the last Will and testament of one O.P . Ralhan (the said deceased), who was the producer of various cinematographicfilms.Heexpiredon20 thApril1999leavingbehindthe plaintiff and defendant No.4 Manorama Omprakash Ralhan and defendant No.5 Munesh @ Ricky Ralhan, as his legal heirs. The 1 st defendantclaimstobealicenseeinrespectofasongMeriDuniyaHai MaaTereAanchalMein(hereinafterreferredtoasthesaidSong).Itis claimedthattherightsinrespectofthesaidsongareacquiredbythe1 st defendant from defendant No.2 Saregama India Ltd, a company registeredundertheCompaniesAct,1956havingitsregisteredofficeat theaddressmentionedinthecausetitle.ThedefendantNo.3istheCourt Receiver,High Court,Bombay,who hasbeen appointedasReceiver in Suit No.3748 of 2000 pending before this Court in respect of the copyright vested in the cinematographic films belonging to the said deceased.

3}

Thesuitisfiledbytheplaintiffonbehalfofherselfanddefendant

Nos.4 and 5, seeking to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from infringingthecopyrightinthesongsfromthefilmsbelongingtothesaid deceasedandnowvestedintheestateofthesaiddeceased,ofwhichthe

3 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

plaintiff claims to be executrix. Thus, no reliefs are claimed against defendantNos.3to5.

4}

Itisstatedthatthedeceasedhadproducedseveralcinematographic

films,detailsofwhicharesetoutinthepara3oftheplaint.Intheyear 1969hehadproducedafilmcalledTalash.Inthatfilm,interalia,a songfeaturedwhichisentitledMeriDuniyaHaiMaaTereAanchalMein ,namely,thesaidSong.Itisallegedintheplaintthattheaforesaidfilm andthesaidsongweresuperhit.Thesameispopulareventoday.The songsfromthefilmTalashincludingthesaidsonghasimmenserecall valueamongstcineandmusiclovers.Therefore,thesesongsaresungat variousfunctions,playedoverradiochannelsandevenperformedliveby artists.Thecopyrightintheaforesaidfilmandsongsexclusivelyvestsin theestateofthesaiddeceased.

5}

ThedeceasedvideAgreementdated19th December1962entered

intowiththepredecessorsofdefendantNo.2,hadgrantedcertainrights toexploitthemusicinthesongsofthefilmsbelongingtothedeceased foralimitedperiod.ByfurtherAgreementsdated19 thJanuary1965,24th April1967,7thJanuary1970,19thDecember1972,15thJanuary1977and

4 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

27th April 1980, the rights of exploitation vested in the songsof films producedbythesaiddeceased,weregrantedand/orextendedfromtime totimeinfavourofthepredecessorsofthedefendantNo.2fortheterms mentionedtherein.AnnexuresC1andC2totheplaintarecopiesofthe 1977and1980Agreements.ItisstatedthatthoughdefendantNo.2was underobligationtoprovideforaroyaltystatementtothedeceasedfrom timetotime,thatwasalwaysdelayedand/orneglected.Uponthedemise ofthesaiddeceased,theplaintiffexecutrixwasunawareofalltherights grantedbyherfather.InandaroundJanuary2006,shewasinformedby defendantNo.2thatthesaiddefendantswantedtoexploitrightsinthe filmsofthedeceased,detailsofwhicharementionedinpara3ofthe plaint. Acopy of the saidLetter dated9 th January 2006 addressedby defendant No.2 to the plaintiff is annexed as Annexure D and the plaintiffs reply thereto is dated 18th January 2006, Annexure E to the plaint. It is stated that in view of the impending disputes within the family of the said deceased, the plaintiff did not enter into any arrangementwithrespecttothecopyrightsubsistinginthemusicand songsinthefilmsbelongingtothesaiddeceased.

6}

On 12th May 2010, the plaintiff by her advocate's letter of even

5 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

date, informed the defendant No.2 that they had failed and neglected furnishingofthestatementsandalsofailedtopaytheroyaltyamounts dueandpayabletotheestateofthesaiddeceased.Itwasalsoinformed that since none of the Agreements referred to above and executed between the deceased and defendant No.2 were valid or subsisting, defendantNo.2oughttoceaseanddesistfromdealinginanymanner whatsoever,withtherightsofthesaiddeceased.Acopyofthisletteris AnnexureFtotheplaint.Inreplythereto,thedefendantNo.2disputed thestandoftheplaintiffandcalledupontheplaintifftofurnishcopiesof thepriorcorrespondence.Therefore,therewasanotherletteraddressed bytheplaintiff'sadvocatedated26thAugust2010.

7}

Itisstatedthatinviewofsomelitigationconcerningtheestateof

thedeceased,theplaintiffcouldnotfollowupthematterwithdefendant No.2.However,inDecember2011theplaintiffcameacrossacommercial advertisementontelevisionissuedbydefendantNo.1,wherein,theyused the said song from the film Talash and the use of this song is unauthorised and without permission of the estate. That constitutes infringementofthecopyrightand,therefore,noticethroughadvocatewas givenbytheplaintifftodefendantNo.1toceaseanddesistfromusingthe

6 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

saidsongon5thDecember2011andbytheirletterdated13 thDecember 2011,thedefendantNo.1informedtheplaintiffthattheyhadobtained licencetousethesaidsongfromdefendantNo.2whohadrepresentedto themthattheyownandcontrolcopyrightinthesaidsong.Thereafter, correspondencefollowedbetweentheplaintiffanddefendantNo.1under which the defendant No.2 claimed that they were sole and absolute owners of the copyright in the sound recordings and the underlying musical and literary worksof the songsof the film Talashand have exclusiverightsofexploitationthereof.Itissuchcorrespondenceandthe stand of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that has resulted in the plaintiff instituting the present suit claiming, firstly, a permanent injunction in termsofprayerclause(a)andvideprayerclause(b)restrainingcreation ofanythirdpartyrightsinanyofthesongs,musicalworks,musicalrights arisingoutofthecinematographicfilmsproducedbyMr.O.P .Ralhanand particularlysetoutinpara2.Thereisalsoaclaimfordamages.

8}

ItisinfurtheranceofsuchasuitwhichisfiledinthisCourtbythe

plaintiff on 1st March 2012, that the application for interim relief and particularly temporary injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the NoticeofMotionandprayerclause(b)isfiled.

7 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

9}

InreplytothisNoticeofMotionandafterreceiptofthepapersand

proceedings, an affidavit of one Yash Asai, the Manager Legal of defendantNo.2,isfiled.Inparas3and4ofthesaidaffidavit,thisiswhat isstated:

Attheoutset,IsayandsubmitthatthisHon'bleCourt

hasnojurisdictiontoentertainandtrythesuit.Isayatthe outsetthattheplaintiffisguiltyofsuppresioveryasshe has failed to annex the relevant Agreement between the plaintiff'sfatherandthedefendantNo.2,whichgovernsthe rightsofthedefendantNo.2totheallegedinfringingwork. AnnexedheretoandmarkedasExhibitAisacopyofthe Agreement dated 24th April 1967 between M/s.Ralhan Productions,theinterestswhereof,theplaintiffpurportsto representandthedefendantNo.2'spredecessorintitleand interest,theGramophoneCompanyofIndia(Private)Ltd (Agreement).DefendantNo.2hassucceededtothesaid agreementinplaceofthesaidGramophoneCompanyof India Pvt Ltd. This Agreement relates to the work in question and governs the transaction. The agreements annexedtotheplaintdonotrelatetothepresentsuitwork orapplytothetransaction. 4 I say that as per the terms of the Agreement, the

8 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

plaintiffistheownerundertheCopyrightAct,1957(Act) oftheoriginalplateoftherecordingsoftheworksfromthe filmsofM/s.RalhanProductions,madeasperthetermsof theAgreement.Isaythatthesaidworksfromthefilmsof M/s.Ralhan Productions include all the works from the timeofM/s.RalhanProductionsmadewithintheperiodof 2(two)yearscommencingfrom5 thDecember1966.Isay thatbyafurtherextension,thesaidperiodof2(two)years was extended by a further period of 1 (one) year, thus including all the works from the films of M/s.Ralhan Productionswithinaperiodof1(one)yearcommencing from5th December1968withintheambitoftherightsof thedefendantNo.2.Isaythatinanycase,thedefendant No.2hasbeenassignedtherightstothesaidworksand hencethedefendantNo.2iswellwithinitsrightstousethe subjectworkandgrantlicenseinrespectthereofandthe plaintiffisnotentitledtoseekanyrestraintontherightof the defendant No.2 in respect of the said work. Hereto annexedandmarkedasExhibitBisacopyoftheletter dated28th November1968extendingthesaidperiodof2 (two)yearsoftheAgreement.Thereisnoinfringementby thedefendantNo.2asallegedoratall.ThedefendantNo.2 was/isentitledunderthesaidagreementtorightswhich belongtothedefendantNo.2andnottotheplaintiff/estate ofthelateMr.O.P .Ralhan.ThedefendantNo.2,asownerof thoserights,isentitledtoexercisethoserightswithoutany interference by the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is not

9 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

infringinganyallegedrightsoftheplaintiff.

10}

Apartfromthis,uponthegroundsofdelayandestoppel,therelief

isopposed.Inpara6ofthisaffidavit,itisstatedthatthedefendanthas beenmakingpaymentofroyaltytoM/s.RalhanProductionsandwhich have been received by them until May 2010. Further accounts of the royaltyhavebeenalsoprovidedandinpara6ofthisaffidavit,relianceis placed on certain figures and letters, copies of which are annexed as AnnexuresCandDtothisaffidavit.

11}

Inthesecircumstancesandbyrelyingontheclaiminrelationto

copyright and contending that the Agreement dated 24 th April 1967 grants the rights absolutely in favour of defendant No.2, that it is submittedthattheMotionbedismissed.

12}

ThereisanadditionalaffidavitwhichisfiledinreplytotheNotice

ofMotionandinthisadditionalaffidavitwhatiscontendedisthatthere arecertainadmissionsinletterdated18 th January2006oftheplaintiff and,therefore,onceagainthepleaofestoppelisraised.

13}

Intherejoinderaffidavitoftheplaintiff,copiesofwhichareserved,

10 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

whatisessentiallyurgedis,thattheAgreementdated24 thApril1967is neithersuppressednormisreadbytheplaintiff.ThedefendantNo.2does nothaveanyassignmentand/orsubsistingrightsinrespectoftheworks of Mr.O.P .Ralhan. The Agreement was for a limited tenure i.e for two yearsandextendedbyoneyear,duringwhichdefendantNo.2wasgiven righttoexploittherecordingsmadeundertheAgreement.Inanyevent, thatAgreementislimitedtosellingofrecordsmanufacturedduringthe period of three years of the subsistence of the said Agreement and beyond the period of three years only such records which are manufacturedwithintheperiodofthreeyearscouldbesold.Thereisno furtherentitlementmuchlessformanufacturingandsellingtherecords.

14}

Thus, on each counts, namely, on the rights in the works,

suppression of material facts and on the point of limitation, all the allegations are denied and it is claimed that the Notice of Motion be madeabsolute.

15}

Basedonthismaterial,thatIhaveheardthedetailedsubmissions

of the senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the contesting defendantNo.2.

11 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

16}

Mr.Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

plaintiffsubmitsthatthereasonsforfilingthesuithavebeensetoutin theplaint.Mr.KadamsubmitsthatiftheorderpassedbythisCourtin NoticeofMotionNo.2700of2000inSuitNo.3748of2000iscarefully perused,itwouldbeapparentthattheplaintiffisfullyempoweredto protectthe estate of thedeceased.Inanyevent,the rightshave been surrenderedtotheCourtReceiver.ItissubmittedbyMr.Kadamthatthe natureoftheclaimissuchthatitcannotbesaidtobecoveredbythe orderofthisCourtintheabovereferredsuit.Alternatively,itisbecause ofinactiononthepartoftheCourtReceiverinnotprotectingtherights intheworksofthedeceased,thattheplaintiffwasrequiredtofilethis suit.Theseare,inbrief,thereasonsforinstitutionofthesuit.

17}

Mr.Kadam submits that the entire controversy is based on the

construction and interpretation of the Agreement relied upon by the defendant No.2. Mr.Kadam submits that the rights in favour of the defendantNo.2arenotallinclusive.IftheAgreementdated24 th April 1967,acopyofwhichisatExhibit1totheaffidavitinreplyiscarefully perused, it is clear that consideration for the Gramophone Recording

12 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

RightsandrecordsaleisenvisagedinClauses5and6.ByClause7,the righttomakerecordistheonlyrightassignedinfavourofdefendant No.2byM/s.RalhanProductions.Clauses6,7and8oftheAgreementbe readtogetherandinthatlightClause10beinterpreted.

18}

Mr.KadamsubmitsthatthisAgreementispremisedonthefactthat

therightsintheunderlyingwork,namely,lyrics,songcompositionand music are that of M/s.Ralhan Productions. The right under that AgreementisrestrictedtoGramophoneRecordingRightsandlinkedto thesetofrecords.Bynostretchofimagination,therighttoincorporate thegramophonerecordinginafilmiscoveredbythesaidAgreement. Even if the definition of the term copyright and the nature of the copyrightinthesoundrecordingistakenintoconsideration,still,whatis evidentbythereadingofthisAgreementisthatotherrightsinthesound recording remain with M/s.Ralhan Productions. The defendant No.2 cannotexceeditsrightsbyrelyingonClause10ofthesaidAgreementas there is no assignment of rights in its favour as claimed. Mr.Kadam submitsthatwhatcouldbecoveredbyClauses11,12and13,istheright to reproduce the recording in audio format, playing audio tape but beyondthatnothingelsecouldbeclaimedbythe2 nd defendant.Even

13 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

relianceonthetermplateanditsdefinitionintheCopyrightAct,1957 is of no assistance to the 2 nd defendant as very limited and restricted rightshavebeencoveredandcrystalisedunderthisAgreement.Itcannot besaidthatbyacceptingroyaltytheestatehasgivenuptherightsunder theunderlyingworksorinthesoundrecordingaswell.Infact,Clause10 oftheAgreementisconsistentwithwhat2 nddefendantgetsunderClause 7ofthesame.Itisinthesecircumstances,thatMr.Kadamsubmitsthat thedefinitionofthetermplateappearinginsection2(t),definitionof term communication to the public appearing in section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 14(1)(e) of the said Act, would not enablethedefendantNo.2toexpandtheambitandscopeofthesaid Agreement.Eventheletterdated9th January2006mustbeseenasan offer recognising that nonphysical sources and rights are not with defendant No.2. Hence, a modification of the Agreement has been suggestedbythislettervidepara13.Ifthisrighthadalreadyaccrued, vestedandwassubsistingundertheAgreementdated24 th April1967, then,therewasnooccasionforthedefendantNo.2tohavemadethis offer. This clearly means that such a right is not available under the Agreement.Mr.KadamsubmitsthatnomodificationoftheAgreement hadbeenagreedbytheplaintiffand,therefore,thereisnopermissionto

14 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

sublicencetootherstheexploitationinnonphysicalformat/medium.In suchcircumstances,bytheownshowingofdefendantNo.2itcouldnot have conferredanyrightsin the saidsongin favour of the defendant No.1.

19}

InsupportofhissubmissionsMr.Kadamhasplacedrelianceonthe

definition of the term record as appearing in section 2(w) of the CopyrightAct,1957,whichisomitted.Hehasalsoplacedrelianceupon theamendmenttotheCopyrightAct,1957andparticularlyinrelationto thedefinitionandsubstantiveprovisioninrelationtosoundrecording.

20}

On the other hand, Mr.Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel

appearingonbehalfofthecontestingdefendantNo.2firstlysubmitsthat theargumentsandsubmissionsofMr.Kadamappearingonbehalfofthe plaintiff, are not based on the averments in the plaint. Inviting my attentiontotheavermentsintheplaintandparticularlyparas7and12 thereof,Mr.Tulazapurkarsubmitsthattheplaintiffhasunderstoodthat, the rights of the 2nd defendant in the musical works subsisting in the songsofthemoviesproducedbythesaiddeceasedandpermittedtobe exploitedbydefendantNo.2,hadalreadycometoanend.Thus,itisnot

15 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

as if the plaintiff is pleading that the defendant No.2 has not been conferredanyrightsundertheAgreementof1967orthatthisAgreement wasnotinexistence.TheargumentisthatthesaidAgreementandthe arrangement thereunder has already come to an end and the 2 nd defendant is illegally and wrongly continuing the exploitation of the copyrightwithoutpermissionoftheestate.

21}

Apriorpara,namely,para7oftheplaintwouldalsoindicatethat

theplaintiffwasawareofthebroadarrangementandthewordingofthe clausesoftheAgreement,whichisinclusive.

22}

Eventhechartreferredtoinpara3andtheultimateprayersat

page17oftheplaintwouldindicatethatthecontroversyisnotwhether anyrightswereconferredornot.Thecontroversyiswhethertherights aresubsistingornot.Insuchcircumstances,thecauseofactioninthe plaintisentirelydifferentthanwhatisargued.Infact,Mr.Tulzapurkar submitsthatnowtheplaintiffseekstocorrectherselfbysubmittingthat theAgreementwasfortwoyearsandthereaftertherewasanextension. ThereisamisconceptionwithregardtoClause2oftheAgreement,but thathasnowbeenclarifiedbytheconcessionthattheAgreementhasnot

16 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

cometoanendbyfluxoftime.Mr.Tulzapurkarhasinvitedmyattention tothenoticesprecedingthesuitatpages103and104ofthepaperbook andparticularlypara5thereof.Hehasalsoinvitedmyattentiontothe letterdated26th August2010,AnnexureH,page113ofthepaperbook. Relyingonthecontentsofthesedocumentsitisurgedthatitisimproper anderroneoustocontendthattherightsarenotpermanent.Theydonot cometoanendaftertwoorthreeyearsbutareawardedinperpetuity. Mr.TulzapurkarhasrelieduponClauses4,6,7and8oftheAgreementin supportofthissubmissions.

23}

Alternativelyandwithoutprejudice,Mr.Tulzapurkarhasinvitedmy

attentiontotheAgreementAnnexureAtotheaffidavitinreplyandthe definitionofthetermrecordappearingtherein.Hehasalsoinvitedmy attention to section 2(t), section 2(xx), 2(y)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 which defines the terms, viz., Plate, Sound Recording and workrespectively.Mr.Tulzapurkarhasthensubmittedthatsections13 and14(1)(e)oftheCopyrightAct,1957andClause7oftheAgreement wouldhaveimportantbearingonthecontroversyraisedbeforethisCourt evenatthisprimafaciestage.Mr.Tulzapurkarsubmitsbyrelyinguponall this, that the assignment in favour of the defendant No.2 is absolute.

17 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

There is no restriction in the copyright of the sound recording of the subject work. It is not proper to urge that the definition of the term PlateintheAgreementisonlyforthepurposesofdescribingthedevice or equipment, but it defines the concept. The word record and the definition of the same in the Agreement is lifted and taken from the Copyright Act, 1957 and if that is contradistinguished with the term sound recording as defined in the said Copyright Act post its amendmentin1994,then,itisclearthatthedefendantNo.2isnowthe producer or owner of the copyright in the sound recording. The only constructionoftheAgreementcanbethatentirerecord/soundrecording rightshavebeenassignedandtransferredinfavourofdefendantNo.2. Oncethatisnotconditionalorrestricted,then,thereisnoquestionof anyinfringementorthebreachofthecopyright.Thereisnothinginthe letteratpage96ofthepaperbookaddressedbydefendantNo.2.Thesaid lettermustbeseeninthebackdropofallAgreementsandisonlytobring tothenoticeofthepartiesthatsomemodificationswouldberequiredin theAgreementbypassageoftime.Para13ofthesaidletteratpage98 should not be read in isolation. That it is the understanding of the plaintiffthatallrightsaretransferredinfavourofM/s.Saregamaandthat she or the estate is only entitled to the revenue, is apparent from a

18 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

readingoftheStatementofAccountason31 st March2010,acopyof which is at page 107 of the paperbook. Even the reply affidavit from pages18to25wouldindicatethatM/s.RalhanProductionshavereceived thechequeagainstroyalties.Thisistherevenuegeneratedfromsaleof thenonphysicalformoftherecordandthatissharedwiththeplaintiff. Forallthesereasons,Mr.Tulzapurkarsubmitsthatthereisnosubstancein any of the contentions of the plaintiff and the Motion deserves to be dismissed. 24} Mr.Tulzapurkar has relied upon judgment of the learned single

JudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtreportedinAIR2003Delhi236inthecase of Prentice Hall India Pvt Ltd vs. Prentice Hall Inc and others and particularly,theobservationsthereinthatoncethesubjectAgreementhas beenworkedoutfornumberofyearsandintheprocessthepartieshave actedinaparticularmanner,then,thecourseofconductisrelevantfor thepurposeofascertainingastohowthepartiesunderstoodandacted ontheAgreement(Para44,page246).Mr.Tulzapurkaralsoreliesupon the Work Synchronization Agreement between defendant No.2 and defendantNo.1,basedonwhichthesongoraportionthereofhasbeen utilised in the jingle or advertisement or publicity material by the defendantNo.1.

19 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

25}

ThedefendantNo.1hasadoptedtheargumentsofMr.Tulzapurkar.

26}

With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties,Ihaveperusedtheplaintandtheannexuressoalsotheaffidvits onrecord.IhavealsoperusedtherelevantprovisionsoftheCopyright Act,1957andthedecisionsthathavebeenbroughttomynotice.The objectoftheActissummarisedinthefollowingwordsbytheHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Book Company and others vs. D.B.ModakandanotherreportedinAIR2008SC809:

Thecopyrightprotectionfindsitsjustificationinfair

play.Whenapersonproducessomethingwithhisskilland labour, it normally belongs to him and the other person wouldnotbepermittedtomakeaprofitoutoftheskilland labouroftheoriginalauthoranditisforthis reasonthe CopyrightAct,1957givestotheauthorscertainexclusive rightsinrelationtothecertainworkreferredintheAct. The object of the Act is to protect the author of the copyright work from an unlawful reproduction or exploitationofhisworkbyothers.Copyrightisarightto stopothersfromexploitingtheworkwithouttheconsentor assent of the owner of the copyright. A copyright law

20 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

presentsabalancebetweentheinterestsandrightsofthe author and that of the public in protecting the public domain,ortoclaimthecopyrightandprotectitunderthe copyrightstatute. Oneofthekeyrequirementsisthatof originality which contributes, and has a direct nexus, in maintainingtheinterestsoftheauthoraswellasthatof publicinprotectingthemattersinpublicdomain. Itisa wellaccepted principle of copyright law that there is no copyrightinthefactsperse,asthefactsarenotcreatednor have theyoriginatedwiththe authorof anywork which embodies these facts. The issue of copyright is closely connectedtothatofcommercialviability,andcommercial consequencesandimplications. 9. ThedevelopmentofcopyrightlawinIndiaisclosely

associatedwiththeBritishcopyrightlaw.StatuteofAnne, the first Copyright Act in England, was passed in 17th century which provided that the author of any book already printed will have the sole right of printing such bookforatermmentionedtherein. Thereafter,camethe Actof1814,andthentheActof1842whichrepealedthe twoearlierActsof1709and1814. TheCopyrightActof 1911inEnglandhadcodifiedandconsolidatedthevarious earlierCopyrightActsondifferentworks.Thencamethe CopyrightActof1956.InIndia,thefirstCopyrightActwas passed in 1914. This was nothing but a copy of the Copyright Act of 1911 of United Kingdom with suitable

21 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

modifications to make it applicable to the then British India. The Copyright Act of 1957, which is the current statute, has followed and adopted the principles and provisions contained in the U.K. Act of 1956 along with introduction of many new provisions. Then came the Copyright(Amendment)Act,1983whichmadeanumber of amendments to the Act of 1957 and the Copyright (Amendment)Act,1984whichwasmainlyintroducedwith theobjecttodiscourageandpreventthewidespreadpiracy prevailing in video films and records. Thereafter, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 has effected many majoramendmentsintheCopyrightActof1957. 11. Copyrightispurelyacreationofthestatuteunderthe 1957Act.Whatrightstheauthorhasinhisworkbyvirtue ofhiscreation,aredefinedinSections14and17ofthe Act. These are exclusive rights, but subject tothe other provisionsoftheAct. Inthefirstplace,theworkshould qualify under the provisions of Section 13, for the subsistence of copyright. Although the rights have been referredtoasexclusiverights,therearevariousexceptions tothemwhicharelistedinSection52. 13. Worksinwhichcopyrightsubsists.(1)Subjecttothe provisionsofthissectionandtheotherprovisionsofthis Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the followingclassesofworks,thatistosay,

22 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

(a) originalliterary,dramatic,musicalandartisticworks; (b) cinematographfilms;and (c) soundrecording, (2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in subsection(1),otherthanaworktowhichtheprovisions ofsection40orsection41,apply,unless (i)inthecaseofapublishedwork,theworkisfirst published in India, or where the work is first published outsideIndia,theauthorisatthedateofsuchpublication, orinacasewheretheauthorwas deadatthatdate,was atthetimeofhisdeath,acitizenofIndia; (ii)inthecaseofanunpublishedworkotherthana workof India;and (iii)inthecaseofaworkofarchitecture,theworkis locatedin India. Explanation.Inthecaseofaworkofjointauthorship, the conditions conferring copyright specified in this sub sectionshallbesatisfiedbyalltheauthorsofthework. (3) Copyrightshallnotsubsist architecture, the author is at the date of the makingoftheworka citizen of India or domiciled in

(a)inanycinematographfilmifasubstantialpartof

23 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

thefilmisaninfringementofthecopyrightinanyother work; (b) in any sound recording made in respect of a literary,dramaticormusicalwork,ifinmakingthesound recording,copyrightinsuchworkhasbeeninfringed. xxxxxxxxx 14. Meaningofcopyright(1)Forthepurposesof thisAct, "copyright"meanstheexclusiveright,subjectto theprovisionsofthisAct,todoorauthorisethedoingof any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantialpartthereof,namely: (a) (i) means; (ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not beingcopiesalreadyincirculation; (iii) toperformtheworkinpublic,orcommunicate ittothepublic; (iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recordinginrespectofthework; (v) tomakeanytranslationofthework; (vi) tomakeanyadaptationofthework; (vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptationofthework,anyoftheactsspecifiedinrelation totheworkinsubclauses(i)to(vi); in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical to reproduce the work in any material form work,notbeingacomputerprogramme, including the storing of it in any medium by electronic

24 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

xxx

xxx

xxx

17. First owner of copyright. Subject to the provisionsofthisAct,theauthorofaworkshallbethefirst ownerofthecopyrighttherein: Providedthat xxxxxxxxx (d) inthecaseofaGovernmentwork,Government shall,intheabsenceofanyagreementtothecontrary,be thefirstownerofthecopyrighttherein; xxxxxxxxx 52.Certainactsnottobeinfringementofcopyright. (1)Thefollowingactsshallnotconstituteaninfringement ofcopyright,namely: (a).. xxxxxxxxx (q)thereproductionorpublicationof (i)... xxxxxxxxx (iv) anyjudgmentororderofaCourt,Tribunalor other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publicationofsuchjudgmentororderisprohibitedbythe Court,theTribunalorotherjudicialauthority, asthecasemaybe; xxxxxxxxx 13. SubjecttotheprovisionsofSection13andtheother

25 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

provisionsoftheAct,thereshallbeacopyrightthroughout India in original literary work, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording, subjecttotheexceptionsprovidedinsubsections(2)and (3) of Section 13. For copyright protection, all literary works have to be original as per Section 13 of the Act. Broadly speaking, there would be two classes of literary works:(a)primaryorpriorworks:Thesearetheliterary worksnotbasedonexistingsubjectmatterand,therefore, wouldbecalledprimaryorpriorworks;and(b)secondary or derivative works: These are literary works based on existing subjectmatter. Since such works are based on existingsubjectmatter,theyarecalledderivativeworkor secondary work. Work is defined in Section 2(y) which wouldbe a literary,dramatic,musicalorartisticwork;a cinematographfilm;andasoundrecording.UnderSection 2(o),literaryworkwouldincludecomputerprogrammes, tablesandcompilationsincludingcomputerdatabases.For the purposes of the Act, Section 14(1) enumerates what shallbeacopyrightwhichisanexclusiveright,subjectto theprovisionsoftheAct,todoorauthorizethedoingof theactsprovidedinclauses(i)to(vii)inrespectofawork or any substantial part thereof in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme. Section2(k)definesthe`governmentwork' whichwouldbeaworkwhichismadeorpublishedbyor under the direction or control of, amongst others, any

26 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority in India. By virtue of this definition, the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court would be a government work. Under Section17(d),theGovernmentshall,intheabsenceofany agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in a government work. In the absence of any agreementtothecontrary,thegovernmentshallbethefirst ownerofthecopyrightinthejudgmentsoftheSupreme Court,thesamebeingagovernmentworkunderSection 2(k). Section 52(1) expressly provides that certain acts enumeratedthereinshallnotconstituteaninfringementof copyright and subclause (iv) of clause (q) excludes the reproductionorpublicationofanyjudgmentororderofa Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproductionorpublication of suchjudgmentororderis prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal or other judicial authorityfromcopyright.Thejudicial pronouncementsof the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. The reproduction or publication of the judgmentsdeliveredbytheSupremeCourtbyanynumber ofpersonswouldnotbeinfringementofacopyrightofthe first owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited. The question, therefore, is whether by introducing certain inputs in a judgment delivered by a court it becomes original copyedited judgment and the personorauthorityorcompanywhodidsocouldclaimto

27 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

haveembodiedtheoriginalityinthesaidjudgmentandthe judgmenttakesthe colour of original judgmenthaving a copyrightthereinofitspublisher. 14. In many cases, a work is derived from an

existingwork. Whetherinsuchaderivativework,anew copyrightworkiscreated,willdependonvariousfactors, and would one of them be only skill,capital and labour expendeduponittoqualifyforcopyrightprotectionina derivative literary work created from the preexisting materialinthepublicdomain,andtherequiredexerciseof independentskill,labourandcapitalinitscreationbythe author would qualifyhim for the copyrightprotection in the derivative work. Or would it be the creativity in a derivative work in which the final position will depend upon the amount and value of the corrections and improvements, the independent skill & labour, and the creativity in the endproduct is such as to create a new copyrightworktomakethecreatorofthederivativework theauthorofit;andifnot,therewillbenonewcopyright workandthentheoriginalauthorwillremaintheauthorof theoriginalworkandthecreatorofthe derivativework willhavebeentheauthorofthealterationsortheinputs puttherein,fortheirnaturewillnothavebeensuchasto attracttheprotectionunderthelawofcopyright.

28 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

27}

Both sides agree that in the present matter the question is of

interpretationoftheAgreementdated24thApril1967.

28}

ThatAgreementisexecutedbetweenM/s.RalhanProductionsand

the predecessor in title of defendant No.2, namely, the Gramophone CompanyofIndiaLtd.Thatrelatestotherecordingsoftheworksfrom thefilmsofM/s.RalhanProductions.Thatincludestheworksfromthe filmswhicharereferredtoinpara3oftheplaint.ThatAgreementrecites thatM/s.RalhanProductionsaretheclientsandthepredecessorintitleof the defendant No.2, is the company. It is a common ground that the expressionCompanyincludesitslegalsuccessorsandassigns.

29}

WhatthedefinitionsintheAgreementstateisthatforthepurpose

ofthisAgreementthewordWorkwillhavethesamemeaningassigned toitbysection2(y)(i)oftheCopyrightAct,1957.

30}

ThewordrecordisdefinedinClause1(b)whichreadsasunder:

Thewordrecordshallmeanadoublesideddiscrecord,a magnetictapeoranyothersoundbearingcontrivanceor

29 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

appliance reproducing a performance or performances by the Clients' artistes and musicians of one or more works ownedbytheClients.

31}

Thereafter,inClause2whatisstatedisthatduringaperiodoftwo

years computed from 5th December 1966, the clients M/s.Ralhan Productionsshallsupplytothecompanyattheirownexpensetheartists andmusiciansetctoperformmusicaland/orotherworksfromtheirfilms for the purpose of making gramophone records, and the artists and musiciansetcshallattendattheCompany'sstudioorsuchotherplaceas may be appointed by the Company and shall at such place and time record such works as the Company shall select, for Mechanical ReproductionRightsincludingtherighttomakegramophonerecordsand suchrightsbelongtothesaidM/s.RalhanProductions.Clause3states that for repetition of this work, the artists and musicians shall be supplied.

32}

What Clause 4 recites is that notwithstanding Clauses 2 and 3,

M/s.RalhanProductionsattheirownexpensealternativelyandsubjectto theconsentofthecompanysupplythecompanysoundtracksorrecorded

30 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

tapeoftheirmusicaland/orotherworksandthecompanyshallutilise such sound tracks or recorded tapes for the purpose of rerecording therefrom and the subsequent manufacture of gramophone records as referred to in the above mentioned clause, provided they are, in the opinionofthecompany,suitableforsuchpurpose.

33}

M/s.Ralhan Productions agreed to indemnify the company from

andagainstallactions,claimsanddamageswhichmaybeincurredby reason of thesuchrerecordingan subsequentmanufacture,issue and saleofgramophonerecordsderivedfromsoundtracksorrecordedtapes suppliedbyM/s.RalhanProductions.Clause5containsacovenantbythe clientssaidM/s.RalhanProductionsthatduringtheperiodoftwoyearsit willnotallowanyofitsmusicaland/orotherworktoberecordedorre recordedbyanyoftheirartistsandmusiciansetcorfromanyfilmsound tracksorrecordedtapesorothermodesforanyotherperson,firmor corporation whatsoever carrying on a business similar to or in competitionwiththatofthecompanyinalloranyofitsbranches.

34}

SinceheavyrelianceisplacedonClauses6,7,10and12,theyare

reproducedhereinbelow:

31 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

TheCompanyduringthe saidperiodoftwoyear(s)

and thereafter while the records recorded or rerecorded undertheprovisionsofthisAgreementremainonsaleby theCompanyshallpaytotheClientsaroyaltyonnettsales made in any part of the world of all records of the performanceoftheartistesandmusiciansetcasaforesaid calculated on the retail selling price in the country of manufactureforthetimebeingatthefollowingrates: (a) Inthecaseofadoublesideddiscrecord: (i) record 2and1/2%perside (ii) PerformancebytheClients'artistesofany workorworksownedbytheClientsalongwithperformance by other artistes of a work or works not owned by the Clients,onanyonesideofarecordashareproportionalto theumberofworksof 2and1/2%perside (b) Inthecaseofanyotherrecord,thesameshall PerformancebytheClients'artistesofany

workorworksownedbytheClientsonanyonesideofa

bedeemedtoconsistofSections,eachSectioncomprising theequivalentofadoublesided78rpmrecordandroyalty shallbecalculatedonthesmebasisasprovidedunder(a)(i) and (ii) above on each such Section reproducing performancesoftheClients'artistes.

32 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

Provided that if Clients shall at any time after the conclusion of the said period of two year(s) allow their artistesormusiciansetcoranyofthemtorecordanyworks recorded or rerecorded under the provisions of this Agreementorpermittherecordingofsuchworksfromany filmsoundtrackorrecordedtapeorothermeans,forany otherperson,firmorcorporationwhatsoever,thecompany shallbenolongerboundbythissectionandshallnothave to pay any royalty whatsoever to the Clients under this sectionandPROVIDEDFURTHERthatsuchroyaltyshallnot bepayabletotheClientsinrespectofrecordsrecordedor rerecordedundertheprovisionsofthisAgreementbyanyof theClients'artistesandmusiciansetc.,whohasbeforethe execution of this Agreement recorded on behalf of the company. 7 The Clients hereby agree that they assign their

gramophonerecordingrightsinallworkstoberecordedor rerecordedundertheprovisionsofthisAgreementtothe Company,andherebyagreefurthertoindemnifyandkeep indemnified the Company in the case of such works as aforesaidfromandagainstallactions,claimsanddamages whichtheCompanymayincurbyreasonoftherecording, issueandsaleofsuchworks. 8 InconsiderationoftheassignmentsetoutinClause7

33 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

hereof the Company shall pay to the Clients a Copyright royaltyonnettsalesmadeinanypartoftheworldofthe worksrecordedorrerecordedundertheprovisionsofthis Agreement calculated on the retail selling price om the countryofmanufactureforthetimebeingatthefollowing rates: (a) Inthecaseofadoublesideddiscrecord: (i) A work or works owned by the Clients 2and1/2%perside (ii) A work or works owned by the Clients and reproduced alongwith one or more other works not ownedbythisClientsonanyonesideofarecord,ashare proportionaltothenumberofworksof 2and1/2%perside (b) Inthecaseofanyotherrecord,thesameshall

andreproducedonanyonesideofarecord

be deemed to consist of sections, each section comprising theequivalentofadoublesided78rpmrecordandroyalty shallbecalculatedonthesamebasisasprovidedunder(a) (i) and (ii) above on each such section reproducing the worksownedbytheClients. 10 TheCompanyshallbetheowneroftheoriginalplate

within the meaning of The Copyright Act, 1957, and any extensionsormodificationsthereofofeachtitlerecordedor rerecordedunderthe provisionsofthisAgreementatthe

34 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

timewhensuchplateshallbemade.TheCompanyshallalso be entitled to the sole right of production, reproduction, sale, use and performance (including broadcasting) throughouttheworldbyanyandeverymeanswhatsoeverof the records of the works performed by the artistes and musiciansetc.,underthisAgreement.TheCompanyshallin its absolute discretion be entitled to authorise any other persons,firmsandcorporationsinanypartoftheworldto manufacture,selland/orcataloguerecordsofalloranyof the titles recorded or rerecorded under the provisions of thisAgreementwhenroyaltiesshallbecomepayabletothe ClientsasmentionedinClauses6and8hereof. 12 The Company shall be entitled to continue this

Agreementforonefurthersuccessiveperiodofoneyear(s) upongivingnoticeinwritingtotheClients.Anynoticegiven under the provisions hereof shall be given before the expirationofthisAgreement,oranycontinuancethereofas thecasemaybe,byregisteredletterandsenttotheaddress oftheClientslastknowntotheCompany.

35}

AbarereadingofClause6showsthatwhatisagreedthereinisto

payroyaltyonnettsalesmadeinanypartoftheworldofallrecordsof the performance of the artists and musicians calculated on the retail sellingpriceinthecountryofmanufacturewithaprovisothatifafterthe

35 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

period of two years M/s.Ralhan Productions allow their artists or musiciansoranyofthemtorecordtheirworksrecordedorrerecorded under the provisions of this Agreement or term the recording of such worksfromanyfilmsoundtrackorrecordedforanyotherperson,firmor corporationwhatsoeverthecompanywasnolongerboundbythissection andobligedtopayanyroyaltyandfurtherstipulationisthattheroyaltyis notpayabletoM/s.RalhanProductionsinrespectoftherecordsrecorded or rerecorded under the provisions of this Agreement by any of the artistsandmusicians,whohasbeforetheexecutionofthisAgreement recorded on behalf of the company. What Clause 7 provides for is assignmentofGramophoneRecordingRightsinallworkstoberecorded orrerecordedandanindemnity.

36}

Clause 10 succeeds Clauses 8 and 9, which stipulate that in

considerationoftheassignmentvideClause7,theroyaltyshallbepaid onthenettsalespriceinanycountryandClause9providesforfurnishing bythecompanyofhalfyearlystatementsshowingthenumberofrecords sold and based on the same the royalty shall be computed and paid. Clause10makesthecompanytheowneroftheoriginalplatewithinthe meaningoftheCopyrightAct,1957andanyextensionsormodifications

36 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

thereofofeachtitlerecordedorrerecordedundertheprovisionsofthis Agreementatthetimewhensuchplateshallbemade.Thecompanyshall also be entitled to the sole right of the production, sale, use and performance(includingbroadcasting)throughouttheworldbyanyand othermeanswhatsoeveroftherecordsoftheworksperformedbythe artistsandmusiciansetcinthisAgreement.

37}

Thereafter, follow Clauses 11 and 12 and from reading of these

clauses,whatisstatedthereinhasbeencrystalisedbyClause13,which givesthecompanyabsoluterighttousethenamesoftheartistsonthe recordlabels,recordenvelopesetcsothatthecompanycanfullyexploit andutilisetherightsundertheAgreement.

38}

That such an Agreement was executed having been undisputed,

thereismuchsubstanceinthecontentionsofthedefendantNo.2that M/s.Ralhan Productions have conferred in the defendant No.2's predecessor and thereafter defendant No.2, the rights which are more particularlysetoutintheAgreementforacertainperiodandthereafter withfullauthoritytocontinuetheAgreement.

37 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

39}

Mr.Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

plaintiff would still argue that except for the Gramophone Recording RightsallotherrightsvestsinM/s.RalhanProductions.Theassignment, therefore,ispartial.Insuchcircumstances,byrelyingonthedefinitionof the term record as appearing in the Agreement and going by the wordingofClause10ofthesaidAgreement,itcannotbearguedthat contractual stipulations and the Agreement reached between parties confersstatutoryrightsandparticularlythosevestedintheownerofa copyright.Oncesuchistherestrictednatureofthearrangement,then, accordingtoMr.KadamnoreliancecanbeplacedontheCopyrightAct, 1957 or any statutory modification thereof, leave alone the 1994 amendmenttothesame.

40}

Alternatively and without prejudice he submits that there is no

assignment of sound recording rights. Further, the rights under the Agreementwouldnotenablethe2nd defendanttoincorporatethesaid songoranypartthereofintoadistinctworkorafilm.Inthisbehalf, relianceisplacedonClause2andprovisostoClauses4and6ofthe AgreementsoalsoClause7thereof.Inthesecircumstances,accordingto Mr.Kadamconductoftheplaintiffinreceivingtheamountofroyaltyfor

38 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

alltheseyearsisnogroundtodenytheinteriminjunctionasprayed.This isnotadmissionofanytitleorownershipoftheworksbeingvestedin defendantNo.2.Therefore,hesubmitsthatinteriminjunctionbegranted.

41}

It is not possible to accept any of these contentions for the

Agreementmustbereadasawhole.AllClausesthereinshouldbereadin theirentiretyandtogethersoastounderstandandappreciatethenature oftherightsconferredinthedefendantNo.2.

42}

Theprinciplesofconstructionofcontractsanddeedsaretoowell

settled.M/s.RohtasIndustriesLtdvs.TheStateofBiharreportedinAIR 1963SupremeCourt347andRamkishorelalandAnrvs.Kamalnarayan reportedinAIR1963SupremeCourt890aresomeofthecasesinwhich theprincipleswerelaiddown. Inthecaseof RohtasIndustriesvs.The StateofBihar(supra),itisobservedthus:

The true nature of a transaction evidenced by a writtenagreementhasindeedtobeascertainedfromthe covenant andnotmerelyfrom whatthe partieschose to call it. The words of an agreement must be carefully scrutinisedinthelightofthesurroundingcircumstances.

39 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

43}

ItistheseprincipleswhichwouldassisttheCourtwhilefindingout

theintentionoftheparties.FromreadingoftheinstantAgreementand applyingtheseprinciples,primafacie,itisclearthatitisanAgreementso astoconfertherightsinthework.Thetermworkhasbeendefinedin theCopyrightAct,1957tomeanaliterary,dramatic,musicalorartistic work;acinematographicfilm;asoundrecording.Nowthewordsound recordingwassubstitutedbyAct38of1994inthedefinitionoftheterm workappearingin2(y),forthewordrecord,witheffectfrom10 th May 1995. The word record was defined in section 2(w) of the CopyrightAct,1957asunder:

(w) recordmeansanydisc,tape,perforatedrollorother deviceinwhichsoundareembodiedsoastobecapableof being reproduced therefrom, other than a sound track associatedwithacinematographfilm;

44}

Abareperusalofthedefinitionwouldshowthatanydisc,tapeetc

or other device in which sounds are embodied so asto be capable of being reproduced therefrom, other than sound track associated with a cinematographfilm,isarecord.Thus,itwasalwaysunderstoodthatthis

40 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

isnotjustadefinitionoftheactofmakingarecordorrecordingbutit wasunderstoodasaworkindependentlycapableofbeingrecognisedfor the purposes of a copyright. Were itnot to be so,then, there wasno necessityofdefiningitdistinctlythanthatofaliterary,dramatic,musical orartisticworkandparticularlyacinematographfilm.Thus,theword recordwasalwaysappearinginthedefinition ofthetermworkas definedinsection2(y)oftheCopyrightAct,asitstoodin1957aswell.If atalltherewasanydoubt,onecanusefullyrefertothedefinitionofthe termrecordingasappearinginsection2(x)oftheoldAct,namely,the Copyright Act, 1957 and the definition of the term sound recording appearinginsection2(xx)ofthesaidActpostamendmentin1994.That definestheconceptofsoundrecordingandgivesitameaningforthe purposes of the Copyright Act, 1957 and with a view to identify and understanditasadistinctworkinwhichacopyrightsubsistsandcanbe protected.Insuchcircumstances,itisfutiletourgethatthedefinitionof the term record is contractual and has noreference to the statutory provision.InthesameAgreementthewordworkhasbeenunderstood bythepartiestohavethesamemeaningassignedtoitbysection2(y)(i) oftheCopyrightAct,1957,then,itwasnotnecessaryforthepartiesto setoutthedefinitionofthetermrecordbyincorporatingthestatutory

41 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

provision.Noothermeaningofthesetermsapartfromtheirdefinitionin theCopyrightActwasenvisagedbytheparties.Equally,thereisaclear referencetotheownershipoftheoriginalplatewithinthemeaningofthe CopyrightAct,1957inClause10.Itisinthesecircumstances,thatIamof theopinionthatwhatisconferredbytheAgreementandwhatvestsin the 2nd defendant, prima facie, is a copyright in the sound recording whichisadistinctwork.

45}

Mr.Kadamdoesnotdisputethatbysection13oftheCopyrightAct,

theworkinwhichcopyrightsubsistsincludessoundrecording.Insofar asrelianceplacedbyhimonsubsection4ofsection13isconcerned,that is once again amplifying and clarifying that the copyright in the cinematographicfilmorasoundrecordingshallnotaffecttheseparate copyrightinanyworkinrespectofwhichorasubstantialpartofwhich, thefilmorthecasemaybe,thesoundrecordingismade.Here,onemust proceed on the basis of the concession of Mr.Tulzapurkar that the copyrightintheunderlyingworkhasnotbeenclaimedbythedefendant No.2.Ithasnoclaimofownershipinsofarasthelyricsorcompositionof thesongsandmusicisconcerned.Whatithasclaimedisthatinsofaras the sound recordingis concerned, it isa work in which the copyright

42 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

subsistsintheirfavour,primafacie,fromtheCopyrightAct,1957asalso theclausesofthesaidAgreement.Itisthataspectandrecognisingthe separatecopyrightintheunderlyingworkandthesoundrecording,that therelianceplacedbydefendantNo.2onsection14oftheCopyrightAct mustbeseen.ThatprovisiondefinesforthepurposesoftheCopyright Act, the term copyright. That is an exclusive right, subject to the provisions of the Act to do or authorise the doing of any of the acts enumerated in the said provision, in respect of the work or any substantialpartthereof,namely,inthecaseofasoundrecordingtomake anyothersoundrecordingembodyingit,tosellorgiveonhire,oroffer forsaleorhire,anycopyofthesoundrecording,regardlessofwhether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions and to communicatethesoundrecordingtothepublic.Therefore,oncesuchis the sweep of the right and the authority in respect of a work or any substantialpartthereof,andthatincludescommunicationtothepublicas understoodbysection2(ff)oftheCopyrightAct,1957,then,primafacie thereissubstanceinthecontentionsofMr.Tulzapurkarthatinrelationto thesoundrecordingthe2nd defendantcanbesaidtobeprimafacie,a producer.

43 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

46}

Equally, his reliance upon the definition of the term plate as

definedinsection2(t)iswellplaced.Thatisaninclusivedefinitionandit includesallnotesordevicesusedorintendedtobeusedforprintingor reproducing copies of any works or any matrix or other appliance by whichsoundrecordingintheacousticpresentationoftheworkareorare intendedtobemade.Ifthisdefinitioniscontradistinguishedwiththe definitionofthesametermpriorto1994amendment,then,thereisno difficulty in understanding as to why the word record has been substitutedbythewordsoundrecordingandreferencetothesamein thesaiddefinition. Insuchcircumstances,itwasalwaysunderstoodby parties that the right in a separate so also identifiable work, namely, soundrecordingisconferredbythisAgreementandthatisprimafacie absolute.

47}

ItisnotpossibletoagreewithMr.Kadamthatforthepurposesof

the present case and even if the statutory concept is embodied inthe document and must be read therein, yet, except for the Gramophone RecordingRightsallotherrightsvestsinM/s.RalhanProductions.Itisin thatcontextthathereliesuponsection18(1)and19oftheCopyright Act,1957.Accordingtohimthisrecognisesassignmentofacopyrightin

44 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

partorpartiallyandbysection19modeofsuchassignmentisprovided. Thereisnodisputethatthestatuerecognisestherightoftheownerto assign the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subjecttolimitations,eitherforthewholetermofthecopyrightorpart thereof,yet,thatistobeunderstoodinthecaseofanindividualactand factsemergingfromtheassignmentineachcase.Inthepresentcase,the recourse to statutory amendment is permissible because it is the embodiment of the statutory right itself which is recognised in the Agreementandtheunderstandingandinterpretationplacedthereonby theparties.TheyknewverywellthatwhatM/s.RalhanProductionsare beingdivested,arethedistinctandidentifiablerightsofsoundrecording whichisaworkwithinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct,1957.Such rightsareconferredondefendantNo.2andpartiesdidnotinanymanner dilutethem andtheprovisosthatarerelieduponbyMr.Kadamwould notbeofanyassistancetotheplaintiffinasmuchaswhattheprovisos recordisthatifaftertheconclusionoftheperiodM/s.RalhanProductions allow their artists or musicians or any of them to record any works recordedorrerecordedundertheprovisionsoftheAgreementorpermit recordingofsuchworksinanyfilmsoundtrackorrecordedtapeetcor othermeans,foranyotherpurpose,thecompanyshallnotthenbebound

45 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

andshallnothavetopayanyroyaltytoM/s.RalhanProductions.Equally, royalty shall not be payable in respect of any records recorded or re recordedundertheprovisionsoftheAgreementbyanyoftheartistsand musicians of M/s.Ralhan Productions who have recorded the same on behalf of the company but before the execution of this Agreement. Understoodthus,thereisnosubstanceinthecontentionsofMr.Kadam thatrestrictedrightsareconferredinthedefendantNo.2bythedeceased. It is in this context that I am of the opinion that the conduct of the plaintiffinacceptingtheroyaltyforalltheseyearsandunderthesubject Agreementwouldsupporttheinterpretationthatissoughttobeplaced bythedefendantNos.1and2onthisAgreementandcannotadvancethe case of the plaintiff as urged. The conduct is thus consistent with the plaintiff'sunderstandingandinterpretationoftheAgreementandequally thatofM/s.RalhanProductions.

48}

Oncesuchistheconclusionreached,then,itwillhavetobeheld

thattheplaintiffhasfailedtomakeoutaprimafaciecase.Shecannot seek any assistance from the contents of a letter which has been addressedbythedefendantNo.2toM/s.RalhanProductionandacopyof whichisatpage96ofthepaperbook.Inanyevent,thatlettermustbe

46 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

readinitsentiretyanditisnotpossibletopickandchoosesentencesand paragraphstherefromatthisstage.Thatletterreinforcesthecontentsof theAgreementandtheinterpretationplacedbythedefendantNo.2onit throughout.AllthatdefendantNo.2desirestoincorporateisthatsince therearetechnologicaladvancesandthattherecouldbesomelicensing of the work/recordings to the third parties and further nonphysical exploitationofthesame,then,royaltypayabletoM/s.RalhanProductions remainsatthesameratesasmentionedinthesaidAgreementforsaleof records in physical and nonphysical formats and that will be applied. ThatisonlytoinformthesaidM/s.RalhanProductionsthatnothingmore than what is contemplated in terms of royalty, shall be payable to M/s.RalhanProductions.

49}

Itisasaresultoftheabovediscussion,thatIamoftheopinionthat

onallthreecounts,namely,primafaciecase,balanceofconvenienceand irreparable lossand injury,the plaintiff has failed, then, the Notice of Motioncannotsucceed.Itisaccordinglydismissedbutwithoutanyorder astocosts.Itisclarifiedthatallobservationsandfindingsshallbetreated astentativeandprimafacieandshouldnotinfluencethe Courtwhile tryingthesuit.Similarly,itisclarifiedonceagainthatthesefindingsare

47 nms-lod-719-12-judgment.doc

renderedinthebackdropoftheAgreementbetweendefendantNo.2and M/s.RalhanProductionsandtheClausesthereinsoalsotheinterpretation placedthereon.However,itisdirectedthatdefendantNos.1and2shall maintainandrenderaccountsbyfilingthemthreetimesayearinthis Court.Thatshallcommencefrom1 st Septemberforthisyear.Forevery subsequentyearstillthependencyofthesuit,theaccountsshallbefiled attheendofApril,endofAugustandendofDecemberoffurtheryears.

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J)