2003 (7) TMI 489 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal from an interlocutory order in a copyright action.
2. Alleged infringement of copyright.
3. Suppression of material facts.
4. Balance of convenience and prejudice.
5. Assessment of costs and damages.
6. Premature application for injunction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal from an Interlocutory Order in a Copyright Action:
This appeal arises from an interlocutory order dated June 30, 2003, where the court refused an injunction to the plaintiffs/appellants but directed the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lakhs.

2. Alleged Infringement of Copyright:
The plaintiffs, the authoress of "A Woman of Substance" and her husband, allege that the TV serial "Karishma - The Miracle of Destiny" infringes their copyright. The claim for infringement is based on an interview with Akashdeep Sabir, the creative director and producer of the serial, who allegedly admitted to basing the serial on the book. However, substantial material supporting the claim is lacking, as the interview only suggests a similarity in the basic theme and some characters, which are not protected under copyright law.

3. Suppression of Material Facts:
The plaintiffs initially filed a suit in Bombay High Court on April 28, 2003, which they withdrew on May 2, 2003, citing fresh material. However, the fresh material, an interview with Sabir, was obtained only in the evening of May 2, 2003. The plaintiffs did not disclose the Bombay proceedings to the Calcutta High Court when obtaining the ex parte interim order on May 7, 2003. This suppression of facts is deemed material and deliberate, misleading the court.

4. Balance of Convenience and Prejudice:
The court found that the balance of convenience heavily favors the respondents. The respondents have invested over Rs. 100 crores in the serial, with significant financial commitments and potential losses if the project is halted. The plaintiffs' claims are based on insufficient material, and the injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the respondents.

5. Assessment of Costs and Damages:
The plaintiffs were directed to file an undertaking to pay damages and costs if the injunction was wrongfully obtained. The court assessed damages at Rs. 1,50,000 per week from May 13, 2003, until the issuance of the dictated order. Costs were assessed at Rs. 10,000 per day of hearing in the lower court and Rs. 15,000 per day of hearing before the appellate court.

6. Premature Application for Injunction:
The application for injunction is deemed premature as it is based on scanty material. The plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case of infringement, and the application lacks the necessary details and evidence to support the claim. The plaintiffs might establish a case after more episodes are aired, but as of now, the application is baseless.

Summary and Order:
The appeal is dismissed with costs and damages assessed as mentioned. The obligation for the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee is lifted. The telecast of the serials can proceed. The plaintiffs' application is dismissed due to lack of prima facie case and suppression of material facts. The prayer for stay of operation of the order is denied.