Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit Of Late OP Ralhan’s Daughter In Copyright Case
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a Swimsuit filed by Rupali P. Shah, daughter of late O.P. Ralhan who was the Bollywood producer and director, in a copyright case.
The stated Swimsuit was filed regarding the declare of Rupali in respect of sure musical works forming a part of cinematographic movies produced by Ralhan Productions of which her late father was the proprietor and subsequently she took cost of the identical.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held, “… this Courtroom is of the opinion that challenge Nos.2, 4 and 5 need to be answered in favour of the contesting defendants and towards the plaintiff. Accordingly, it’s held that the plaintiff has didn’t show that the contesting defendants infringed upon copyright belonging to the property of O. P. Ralhan and that, defendant No.2 has proved that it has perpetual rights to use the music and the songs belonging to the property of O. P. Ralhan and in addition holds perpetual proper to grant licence to others in respect of the stated music and songs.”
Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat and Advocate Rohan Kadam appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff whereas Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar and Advocate Naresh Thacker appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
Details of the Case
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants should be restrained from exploiting musical works of movies produced by Ralhan Productions. It was her case that on a correct studying of the agreements, whereby sure rights had been assigned to the Defendants, after particular time, they had been now not approved to proceed to use the works. In that context, ancillary reliefs had been additionally sought by the Plaintiff towards the Defendants. O.P. Ralhan, late father of the Plaintiff, who was the proprietor of Ralhan Productions, undertook manufacturing of cinematographic movies, which additionally contained musical works and songs. Between 1963 and 1983, he produced 7 movies, being the producer and proprietor of such artistic works related to the movies. The Plaintiff was born in 1964 and as per the Will left by her father, which was probated within the 12 months 2013, she grew to become the proprietor of productions undertaken by her father.
The Plaintiff’s father had executed agreements regarding the stated movies, thereby assigning to the predecessor of the Defendant No. 2 rights within the works of songs and recordings forming a part of the 7 movies. Within the 12 months 1999, he died forsaking his Will, bequeathing rights in properties together with the stated works in favour of the Plaintiff. The Will was probated within the 12 months 2013. Within the years 2004 and 2005, the Plaintiff addressed sure communications to the stated Defendant, asking for royalty statements and funds of royalty below the stated agreements executed in favour of the predecessor of the Defendant. After a spot of greater than 4 years, the Plaintiff despatched a letter by way of her Advocate to the Defendant, informing that not one of the agreements had been legitimate and subsisting.
She additional claimed that the Defendant failed and uncared for in furnishing assertion of royalty payable every so often. Such claims had been refuted by the Defendant and in 2011, the Plaintiff got here throughout a business commercial on tv issued by the Defendant No. 1 whereby a son from movie ‘Talash’ was used, which fashioned a part of the stated 7 movies. The Plaintiff requested to chorus from utilizing the stated music however it was knowledgeable to her that the Defendant was absolutely the proprietor of the copyright in sound recordings and underlying musical and literary works of ‘Talash’ movie. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Swimsuit, searching for perpetual injunction.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom in view of the above information, noticed, “As regards challenge No.3, contemplating that the copy of the licence settlement dated 22.11.2011 is positioned on report and proved by defendant No.1, this Courtroom finds that the stated defendant has been in a position to show that it certainly had licence in respect of the music forming a part of the movie ‘Talash’. The licence was issued by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. As this Courtroom has already reached findings in favour of defendant No.2 with regard to perpetual rights of exploiting songs contained within the stated movies, in respect of additional grant of licence, the aforesaid challenge No.3 needs to be answered in favour of the defendant No.1.”
The Courtroom famous that the Plaintiff has claimed that she had no private information of the topic agreements as a result of she was born in 1964 and he or she was herself a toddler when the topic agreements had been executed and that the existence of among the topic agreements got here to her information solely when 2006 letter was obtained from Defendant No. 2.
“Additionally it is to be famous that whereas the plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.2 had infringed upon the copyright belonging to the property of the stated O. P. Ralhan, she doesn’t seem to have made any efforts to supply the topic agreements or to make any efforts for manufacturing of the identical. Additionally it is discovered that every one the topic agreements don’t look like on report and three of such agreements are on report. This Courtroom has perused the clauses contained therein to seek out that wide-ranging rights had been certainly assigned below the stated agreements”, it added.
The Courtroom, due to this fact, held that the Plaintiff didn’t make efforts to put on report the topic agreements and the allegations made towards the Defendants look like based mostly on rights within the copyright belonging to the property of O.P. Ralhan.
“However, contemplating the general impact of the oral and documentary materials on report, it might not be potential for this Courtroom to achieve a conclusion that the plaintiff will be stated to be responsible of intentionally suppressing paperwork. The paperwork having come on report, detailed submissions have been already made on behalf of the rival events, which this Courtroom has thought of to achieve applicable conclusions. Due to this fact, challenge No.6 will be answered by holding that the plaintiff can’t be stated to be responsible of suppression”, it additional stated.
The Courtroom additionally remarked that though on the one hand, the Plaintiff has alleged that royalty funds weren’t made and alternatively, the Defendant No.2 claims that such funds had been made, the fabric on report reveals sure essential admissions made by the Plaintiff.
“A doc on report i.e. letter dated 21.07.2009 reveals that the plaintiff herself acknowledged the receipt of a certain quantity in direction of half fee of royalty. Even in cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that sure quantities had been obtained in direction of royalty funds. That is in stark distinction to the allegations made on behalf of the plaintiff about royalty funds not being made. There may be additionally materials positioned on report on behalf of the defendant No.2 to point out that quantities had been forwarded to the plaintiff every so often in direction of royalty funds, together with funds for non-physical exploitation of the works. Additionally it is said that when efforts had been made to make royalty funds, the plaintiff refused to just accept. Within the face of such materials, challenge No.7 is answered in favour of defendant No.2 and towards the plaintiff”, it added.
The Courtroom clarified that it might be open for the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 to work out the facet of fee of royalties on the idea of the topic agreements. It concluded that the Plaintiff didn’t make out a case for granting reliefs as claimed within the Swimsuit.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the Swimsuit.
Trigger Title- Rupali P. Shah v. Adani Wilmer Restricted and Others (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-OS:8516)
Look:
Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, Advocates Rohan Kadam, Shirley Mody, and Rucha Vaidya.
Defendants: Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Advocates Naresh Thacker, Shailendra Poria, Samarth Saxena, Gaurav Mehta, Chakrapani Misra, Jigar Parmar, and Pranali Vyas.
