SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, August 12, 2013

The Sholay litigation saga

Posted on 10:32 AM by Unknown


In recent years, ‘Sholay’ has come to be known not just for its value as a commercial movie but also for the litigation saga involving it. (For more details regarding the same, see our posts on the Vodafone dispute here and here, the dispute with Universal, the suit against Greenpeace, the controversy surrounding Ram Gopal Varma's sequel and against the production of Sholay in 3D)   The latest additions to this are two orders passed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Indus Video Pvt. Ltd. 

The first order issued on the 4th of April, 2013 was with respect to the confirmation of an ex-parte ad-interim order filed by Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter ‘SMEPL’). The ex-parte ad- interim order had been granted on 6th April, 2010, by the Delhi High Court in favour of SMEPL and it continued in force until the present order was passed. The defendants, Indus Video Pvt. Ltd (hereafter ‘Indus’) claimed that the copyrights of ‘Sholay’ and other films listed in the plaint was assigned to it by Shri. Ajit Sippy. Indus further assigned these copyrights to Moser Baer India Ltd. and Moser Baer Entertainment Ltd. 

The issue of whether Shri. Ajit Sippy could have validly assigned the copyrights of ‘Sholay’ and the other films has already been discussed by the Delhi High Court at an interim application stage in Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajit Sippy. (This development had been looked at in Prashant’s post, available here) In such order, issued in 2010, the Delhi High Court had restrained Shri. Ajit Sippy from exercising any rights with respect to the copyrights of ‘Sholay’ and 31 other films. The 2010 order was based on the following reasons: G. P. Sippy was the owner of the copyright who transferred these rights to a partnership firm named Sippy Films. On the dissolution of the partnership firm, owing to the death and the resignation of two partners respectively, the partnership became a proprietorship, following which the rights of ‘Sholay’ were further assigned to SMEPL and those of the 31 other films to Generation Three Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter ‘GTEPL’). The fact that the rights had been assigned to SMEPL was further evidenced when it is observed that the later assignment deeds were signed by G.P. Sippy as a confirming party, in his capacity as chairman of SMEPL and GTEPL. Moreover, the Court noted that the doctrine of indoor management could not be invoked in this case, as the defendant was not an innocent third party observer, who was unaware of the inner workings of a company. Therefore, an interim order was passed in favour of SMEPL and GTEPL.

The Delhi High Court, in the 4th April, 2013 order noted that while its decision was not based on the interim order of 6th April, 2010, the fact that an order had been issued against Shri. Ajit Sippy coupled with the fact that Moser Baer India Ltd. had chosen not to contest, indicated that the balance of convenience was in favour of SMEPL. The other two condition required for granting an interim injunction, namely, prima facie case and irreparable injury was also satisfied in this case. The Court rejected the defendant’s contention that there was no irreparable loss and injury in the instant case, simply because SMEPL had claimed for damages. 

Indus appealed against this interim order of 4th April, 2013 and an order with respect to such appeal was issued by the Delhi High Court on 29th May, 2013. The Delhi High Court, in this order, noted that on facts, the three conditions that were required to be satisfied for an interim injunction were satisfied in the instant case. Additionally, the Court stated that it had been held by the Supreme Court in Wander Limited v. Antox Private Limited, that a Court when exercising its appellate jurisdiction should not interfere with the discretion of a Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion unless the Court of first instance can be “shown to have exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or issued an order ignoring settled principles of law.” As none of these conditions were satisfied in the instant case, the High Court stated that the appeal was dismissed.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Copyright, Gopika | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Guest Post: Intermediary liability in defamation cases - Parle, Mouthshut & Visakha cases to clarify the law
    Chaitanya Ramachandran, who has blogged for us previously over here and here , has sent us this excellent guest post analyzing the extent of...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly announce the 2nd International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy
    The readers may be interested to know that the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management of IIT Bombay is geared up to host, in collaboration w...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...
  • Karnataka High Court temporarily restrains German company from exploiting trade secrets of Homag India
    Image from here In an interesting judgment dated 10th October, 2012 the Karnataka High Court, sitting at Bangalore, has passed an interim in...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ▼  August (41)
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
      • PIP Essay Competition Results Announced: Meet the ...
      • Now Showing: Satyagraha: Bom HC denies an Injuncti...
      • Patenting food: Plumpy’ Nut and more?
      • Bollywood flick Satyagraha faces dispute over its ...
      • Leading IP Academics Fired: Protest Petition Again...
      • Two MHRD IP Chair Professors axed; Reasons unknown
      • FICCI and The George Washington University, Washin...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: IPA continues communication with P...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: GI for Pedana Kalamkari Art Form
      • Colgate v Pepsodent: Comparative Advertising
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Justice KN Basha to be new IPAB ch...
      • IPRS complies with new copyright law & decides to ...
      • Re-imposing curbs on royalty payments to foreigners
      • Debating the CIS Draft Bill on Privacy: Should thi...
      • The BDR compulsory licensing application and the B...
      • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
      • Rihanna's victory in the Topshop T-shirt case
      • When cancer drugs stop being “necessities”: A case...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Singers from the South in support ...
      • Loss of an IP Leader: RIP Prof Daruwalla
      • Part II: IPAB revokes Allergan's patent on eye dru...
      • Part I: IPAB revokes Allergan's patent on eye drug...
      • Feedback on draft guidelines for Computer Related ...
      • A naïve report from Parliament on FDI in the Pharm...
      • INTAvening in the Supreme Court: Parallel Imports ...
      • Surprising news! - Roche decides to not ‘pursue’ H...
      • Independent Intellectual Property: Gunning For (or...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Special Services announced by WIP...
      • GI News: Kaipad Rice, Nagpur Oranges, Dharmavaram ...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Patent Office confirms status of G...
      • The Sholay litigation saga
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Has Genentech’s main Herceptin pat...
      • Bollywood flick 'I love NY' accused of plagiarisin...
      • The Herceptin patent fiasco at the Indian Patent O...
      • IPO vs IPAB: IT Prowess and Transparency?
      • Ghost Post: Samsung v. Apple Presidential Enforcem...
      • Delhi HC dismisses Rediff.com's Copyright Infringe...
      • UNICEF Supply Annual Report 2012 : India is the La...
      • Raj Anand Moot Court Competition 2013
      • Breaking News: GSK patents challenged: IPAB revoke...
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (66)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ►  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.