Full Text
Translation output
n-:- \ $-24 & 26 , ' HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO135/2018
ESSEL VISION PRODUCTIONS LTD. „... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mishra, Ms. Ritwika Nanda, Ms. Petal Chandhok and
Mr. Srinivasan, Advocates.
, FAO 137/2018 RAVIJADAV Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suyash Singh and Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary, Advocates,
FAO135/2018
ESSEL VISION PRODUCTIONS LTD. „... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mishra, Ms. Ritwika Nanda, Ms. Petal Chandhok and
Mr. Srinivasan, Advocates.
, FAO 137/2018 RAVIJADAV Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suyash Singh and Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary, Advocates,
VERSUS
MANISHA KULSHRESHTHA & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Yatin Chadha and
Mr. Mayank Chadha, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Yatin Chadha and
Mr. Mayank Chadha, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
13.04.2018 Caveat Nos.316 & 317/2018 Mr. Neeraj Grover, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the caveator/respondentNo.l. The caveats stand discharged.
C.M.No.l4409 & 14503 of 2018 (for exemption)
Allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions.
The applications stand disposed off.
13.04.2018 Caveat Nos.316 & 317/2018 Mr. Neeraj Grover, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the caveator/respondentNo.l. The caveats stand discharged.
C.M.No.l4409 & 14503 of 2018 (for exemption)
Allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions.
The applications stand disposed off.
FAO 135/2018 & C.M.Nos.14407-08/2018 & FAO 137/2018 &
C.M.Nb.14502/2018 Issue notice.
2018:DHC:9158 Mr. Neeraj Grover, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf ofthe respondent No.1. . -
With consent ofthe parties, the appeals are taken up for disposal.
The respondent No.l/plaintiff had filed a suit for rendition of accounts, and not for damages, for what she claims to be an infringement of . her copyrights in a Hindi short story 'Kalindi', written by her in 2007, which was first published in the Hindi Journal 'Vartman Sahitya'. Later, it was
, published in a book named 'Gandharv Gatha'; it was also translated into an
English and published in a collection of short stories, called 'River ofFlesh'.
It is her case that her short story had been adopted into a Marathi Film called , 'Nude: Chitra' without her permission. Therefore^ she seeks protection of her copyrights.
The appellants are aggrieved by and have impugned the exparte order of 05.04.2018, which has restrained them from releasing their movie 'Nude;
Chitra' or making its publication in any manner.
Mr. Parag Tripathi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
' contends that insofar as the impugned order does not disclose (i) whether a primafacie case has been made out or (ii) whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer an irreparable loss (in a case seeking only rendition of accounts) prior to release of the film or (iii) whether balance of convenience lies in her favour in injuncting the release of the film; it errs in law. He states that neither of these three aspects are discussed, even in passing, the impugned order. It oiily records:-
"Heard. Perused. Till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from releasing the movie 'Nude: Chitra' or making its publication in any manner. Plaintiffs shall comply with the Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. "
The learned Senior Counsel further contends that the film is scheduled to be released on March, 2018; advance booking of the theatres for screening has been done at some expense; monies have also been expended towards pre-release advertisements and promotions including the release of the film's trailer and some songs. He submits that all this will be seriously jeopardized if pre-release publication is injuncted, especially if ultimately the release is permitted by the Court. He also stresses that at the end of the day, the respondent/plaintiff seeks only rendition of accounts and not damages. The accounts can always be rendered without the injunction coming in the way ofthe release ofthe film.
He further submits that the viewers of Marathi films are limited and arenot comparable to the large audience of regular Hindustani feature films.
Therefore, like all -regional language films, the release of this Marathi film will have to be carefully calibrated, concerted and focused, especially since the film can be released only in selected theatres. It is argued that the theatre
.owners would not take bookings for screening ofthe movie ifthere obtains a
Court injunction against the release. He states that, assuming that the appellant books the theatre and the film is not released,:they would not only suffer irreparable financial loss but would also irreparable loss to their reputation and goodwill in the market. There is obviously no guarantee that the respondent No.l/plaintiff could possibly compensate the appellant for such losses, as may be incurred or suffered by them.
Mr. Grover, the learned cpunsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.I submits that the plaintiff has not even been shown the film, nor has atiy worthwhile correspondence been entered into with her despite her repeated u requests to thie appellants, especially Mr. Ravi Jadhav, the Script-Writer-
Director and Co-Producer of the film - respondent No.3 (in FAO NO. 135/2018) and appellant (in FAO No. 137/2018). He submits that the appellants should have shown the film to her so that she could discern whether there was any similarity inthe two stories/scripts.
The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that they would have no objection to the respondent No.1/plaintiff being shown the film itself
In view of the aforesaid, the film shall be shown to the plaintiff alongwith her counsel or any other person ofher choice on Sunday i.e. 15""
March, at atime and place convenient to her. There shall be no recording of thefilm in any form byher. She may take notes, if she so desires.
Insofar the impugned order does not disclose whether aprima facie case was made out, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of the
. plaintifffor grant ofthe injunction, failing which irreparable injury would be caused to her, it errs. Therefore, it would have to be stayed. Accordingly, ^ .there shall be astay ofthe impugned order till 19.04.2018, when the case is next Hsted before Trial Court.
The parties shall, appear before the Trial Court on the aforementioned date to argue the application. The learned counsel for the parties assure the
Court that they will assist the Trial Court promptly in the early disposal of the case and shall not seek any^'adjournment on any account whatsoever.
The learned counsel for the respondent states that he will request the
Trial Court to dispose-offthe appHcation for interim injunction on or before
27.04.2018. The learned counsel for the appellant state that they cannot ' possibly have any objection to an expeditious disposal of the applications
. ^ and indeed of the suit itself.
Nothing stated in this order shall be deemed to be an expression on the merits of the case.
The appeal and the pending applications are disposed-off inthe above terms. • , . • . ,.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatureof the CourtMaster.
APRIL 13, 2018 sb , I nV™i waziri, j.
C.M.Nb.14502/2018 Issue notice.
2018:DHC:9158 Mr. Neeraj Grover, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf ofthe respondent No.1. . -
With consent ofthe parties, the appeals are taken up for disposal.
The respondent No.l/plaintiff had filed a suit for rendition of accounts, and not for damages, for what she claims to be an infringement of . her copyrights in a Hindi short story 'Kalindi', written by her in 2007, which was first published in the Hindi Journal 'Vartman Sahitya'. Later, it was
, published in a book named 'Gandharv Gatha'; it was also translated into an
English and published in a collection of short stories, called 'River ofFlesh'.
It is her case that her short story had been adopted into a Marathi Film called , 'Nude: Chitra' without her permission. Therefore^ she seeks protection of her copyrights.
The appellants are aggrieved by and have impugned the exparte order of 05.04.2018, which has restrained them from releasing their movie 'Nude;
Chitra' or making its publication in any manner.
Mr. Parag Tripathi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
' contends that insofar as the impugned order does not disclose (i) whether a primafacie case has been made out or (ii) whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer an irreparable loss (in a case seeking only rendition of accounts) prior to release of the film or (iii) whether balance of convenience lies in her favour in injuncting the release of the film; it errs in law. He states that neither of these three aspects are discussed, even in passing, the impugned order. It oiily records:-
"Heard. Perused. Till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from releasing the movie 'Nude: Chitra' or making its publication in any manner. Plaintiffs shall comply with the Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. "
The learned Senior Counsel further contends that the film is scheduled to be released on March, 2018; advance booking of the theatres for screening has been done at some expense; monies have also been expended towards pre-release advertisements and promotions including the release of the film's trailer and some songs. He submits that all this will be seriously jeopardized if pre-release publication is injuncted, especially if ultimately the release is permitted by the Court. He also stresses that at the end of the day, the respondent/plaintiff seeks only rendition of accounts and not damages. The accounts can always be rendered without the injunction coming in the way ofthe release ofthe film.
He further submits that the viewers of Marathi films are limited and arenot comparable to the large audience of regular Hindustani feature films.
Therefore, like all -regional language films, the release of this Marathi film will have to be carefully calibrated, concerted and focused, especially since the film can be released only in selected theatres. It is argued that the theatre
.owners would not take bookings for screening ofthe movie ifthere obtains a
Court injunction against the release. He states that, assuming that the appellant books the theatre and the film is not released,:they would not only suffer irreparable financial loss but would also irreparable loss to their reputation and goodwill in the market. There is obviously no guarantee that the respondent No.l/plaintiff could possibly compensate the appellant for such losses, as may be incurred or suffered by them.
Mr. Grover, the learned cpunsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.I submits that the plaintiff has not even been shown the film, nor has atiy worthwhile correspondence been entered into with her despite her repeated u requests to thie appellants, especially Mr. Ravi Jadhav, the Script-Writer-
Director and Co-Producer of the film - respondent No.3 (in FAO NO. 135/2018) and appellant (in FAO No. 137/2018). He submits that the appellants should have shown the film to her so that she could discern whether there was any similarity inthe two stories/scripts.
The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that they would have no objection to the respondent No.1/plaintiff being shown the film itself
In view of the aforesaid, the film shall be shown to the plaintiff alongwith her counsel or any other person ofher choice on Sunday i.e. 15""
March, at atime and place convenient to her. There shall be no recording of thefilm in any form byher. She may take notes, if she so desires.
Insofar the impugned order does not disclose whether aprima facie case was made out, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of the
. plaintifffor grant ofthe injunction, failing which irreparable injury would be caused to her, it errs. Therefore, it would have to be stayed. Accordingly, ^ .there shall be astay ofthe impugned order till 19.04.2018, when the case is next Hsted before Trial Court.
The parties shall, appear before the Trial Court on the aforementioned date to argue the application. The learned counsel for the parties assure the
Court that they will assist the Trial Court promptly in the early disposal of the case and shall not seek any^'adjournment on any account whatsoever.
The learned counsel for the respondent states that he will request the
Trial Court to dispose-offthe appHcation for interim injunction on or before
27.04.2018. The learned counsel for the appellant state that they cannot ' possibly have any objection to an expeditious disposal of the applications
. ^ and indeed of the suit itself.
Nothing stated in this order shall be deemed to be an expression on the merits of the case.
The appeal and the pending applications are disposed-off inthe above terms. • , . • . ,.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatureof the CourtMaster.
APRIL 13, 2018 sb , I nV™i waziri, j.
JUDGMENT