John Doe suits: wherein many alleged infringers are either unknown or not readily identified.

MIPR 2018 (1) 0323= MANU/TN/0122/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Essel Vision Productions Ltd., Maharashtra

vs

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi and Ors.

C.S. NO. 876 OF 2017 & O.A. NOS. 1128 TO 1130 OF 2017 DECIDED ON: 04.01.2018

Judge Sundar, J.

Counsel

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Arun C. Mohan, Adv.

 

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of

High Courts Act, 2015

Section 7

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 62

HEAD NOTE

John Doe suits: wherein many alleged infringers are either unknown or not
readily identified.

Copyright – Infringement thereof, Section 62 of Copyright Act, 1957clearly mandates that Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against Defendants. HELD Section 62 of Act, is attracted. This commercial division has expressed its intention to exercise jurisdiction over suit. Plaintiff’s Counsel submits that he has written instruction from his client to withdraw suit. Suitable endorsements in this regard have been made in case file. Suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

JUDGMENT M. Sundar, J.

  1. Arun C. Mohan, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is before this Court.
  2. From the plaint averments and the submissions made before me, it unfurls that
    this is a suit to prevent infringement of Copyright of a motion picture titled “Qarib
    Qarib Singlle”, starring Irrfan Khan, Parvathy, Brijendra Kala and others and directed
    by Tanuja Chandra, wherein many alleged infringers are either unknown or not
    readily identified. I am informed that such suits are referred to as John Doe suits.
    The Plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction against Defendants.
  3. In the light of the plaint averments, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
    Plaintiff that Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is attracted as far as this suit is

 

 

  1. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and in
    the light of the plaint averments and also in view of the fact that Section 62 of the
    Copyright Act is attracted, this Commercial Division will exercise jurisdiction over
    this suit under the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial
    Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter
    referred to as ‘Act 4 of 2016’).
  2. As this commercial division has now expressed its intention to exercise jurisdiction
    over the suit, I turn to the stage of the suit.
  3. Today Mr. Arun C. Mohan, learned Counsel on record for the Sole Plaintiff is
    before the Court. Learned Counsel submits that he has written instruction from his
    client to withdraw the suit. Suitable endorsements in this regard have been made in
    the case file by the learned Counsel and the endorsements read as follows:

Permission granted by this Hon’ble Court to withdraw C.S. No. 876 of 2017.

As per written instructions from the Plaintiff, I may please be permitted to withdraw the suit.

In the light of above endorsements, suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected applications are closed.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *