Voluminous Documents Cannot Be A Reason For Non-Production: Bombay HC Refuses Relief To Shemaroo In Copyright Infringement Suit

“As the plaintiff is found to have failed in making out a prima facie case in its favour, the aspects of grave and irreparable loss being suffered in the absence of temporary injunction and balance of convenience, pale into insignificance. In the light of the above, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction as prayed”, observed Justice Manish Pitale in the matter.

Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani appeared for the plaintiff, Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam appeared for defendant no. 1 and Khaitan Legal Associates represented defendant no. 2.

The plaintiff in the suit claimed to be the absolute owner of the copyright subsisting in 24 cinematographic films, particularly the audio-visual songs. The plaintiff claimed absolute copyright on the basis of agreements executed in its favour by various entities. According to the plaintiff, all such rights, including rights in the audio-visuals of songs contained in the films, have been duly assigned to it by the original owners/producers through various agreements/assignments.

However, defendant No.1 opposed the claim stating that the original producers never raised any objection to such exploitation of audio-visuals of songs of the films by defendant No.1 and on the basis of this claimed that no case is made out for grant of interim reliefs.

The defendant also claimed that temporary injunction ought to be denied to the plaintiff on the ground of delay in approaching the Court. However, the same was objected to by the petitioner while citing Midas Hygiene Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Others 2004 3 SCC 90, to contend that when an infringement of a copyright is made out, normally injunction must follow.

In the chronology of events, between 1985 and 1990, various assignment deeds were executed in respect of the suit films in favour of defendant No.1. But according to the plaintiff, appropriate interpretation of the said assignment deeds showed that only audio rights were assigned to defendant No.1 and nothing more.

While the same is disputed by defendant No.1.

While noting that the petitioner did not produce the documents, the bench also cited Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar 2021 SCC Online SC 734 where on the same issue, the bench had rejected the argument. The bench thus observed,

"In the absence of link documents, the plaintiff is not justified in calling upon this Court to exercise its discretion for granting temporary injunction in its favour, on the basis that exclusive copyrights are held in the said 9 suit films. Thus, insofar as the said 9 suit films are concerned, this Court accepts the contention raised on behalf of defendant No.1 that the prayer for grant of temporary injunction cannot be considered at the threshold as no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff to assert its copyrights in the said 9 suit films".