'Right Of Reply Not For Dishonest Defendant': Bombay High Court Fumes At Violation Of Court Undertaking In Copyright Dispute On Bollywood Movies
Demonstrating little tolerance against a defendant who breached the consent terms and tried to exploit film rights they sold in the year 2004, the Bombay High Court granted immediate ad-interim relief to Indian cinema distributor Narendra Hirawat & Co. Justice Gautam Patel directed Aftab Music Industries to pull down the 20 Bollywood movies from their YouTube page, whose rights it...
Demonstrating little tolerance against a defendant who breached the consent terms and tried to exploit film rights they sold in the year 2004, the Bombay High Court granted immediate ad-interim relief to Indian cinema distributor Narendra Hirawat & Co.
Justice Gautam Patel directed Aftab Music Industries to pull down the 20 Bollywood movies from their YouTube page, whose rights it had assigned to the Plaintiff in perpetuity, and restrained them from claiming any rights over the films till the bench finally decided the suit.
Rejecting the defendant's request to file a reply, the court observed that:
"The right to a reply does not inure to a defendant who is dishonest and is entirely unmindful of commitments made to this Court."
Case
Plaintiffs Narendra Hirawat & Co approached the High Court in a suit stating that the defendants were writing to the plaintiff's licensees, asking them not to broadcast the films on their respective YouTube channels. Moreover, the defendants were playing these movies on their channels.
The defendant indulged in such practices 17 years after assigning all rights of the films "lock, stock and barrel," to them, the plaintiff contended.
Narendra Hirawat's counsel argued that the parties entered into consent terms in another suit nine years ago, where Aftab Music Industries accepted the plaintiff's right over the film in perpetuity.
The defendant claimed it had only sold internet rights to the plaintiff, not YouTube rights. The court called it a "nonsensical" argument observing that YouTube rights couldn't exist in the absence of the internet.
"There is no separate concept of "YouTube rights"…A long, long time ago, there was an internet without YouTube…Hard as it may be for these Defendants to believe, YouTube cannot run as YouTube without the internet," the court said.
Justice Patel remarked this was not only a fit case for exemplary costs to be imposed but also for contempt to be issued because the defendants were acting in "willful" and "deliberate" breach of an undertaking given to the court in writing as far back as in 2012.
"This is one of those cases where, independently of anything that the Plaintiff says, in my view not only should the Interim Application be made absolute immediately, but the Suit should be decreed including with exemplary and punitive costs and a contempt notice should be issued to the Defendants," the court observed.
Lastly, Justice Patel said a prima facie case is made out.
- The court restrained respondents from infringing the applicant's exclusive copyright in the said films, by making copies or storing them in any medium.
- It further restrained the respondent from representing to any third party that they own any rights pertaining to the films.
- Disclose all agreements they may have entered into with regard to the films.
A few of the films involved in the matter are, Badal, Aadmi, Aa Gale Lag Ja, The Don, Phool Aur Angar, Adalat, Mehndi, Haar Jeet and Phool Aur Pathor.
Case Title: Narendra Hirawat & Co v. Aftab Music Industries & Anr
Appearances: Advocates Hiren Kamod, with Ravindra Suryawanshi, Arpit Choudhary, Krunal Mehta & Archis Bhatt,i/b Bar & Brief Attorneys, for the Applicant/Plaintiff.
Advocates Bhagyashree Keny, with Rajesh Mishra, i/b Desh Deepak Singh, for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.