No relief for Inadvertance

Mr. Rishi Raj is engaged in the business of production, distribution and exhibition of films under the brand ‘RAJ RISHI FILMS’. Saregama is one of India’s oldest music labels engaged in the business of acquiring copyright in many sound recordings and literary, musical and dramatic works*. In 2017, Mr. Rishi Raj instituted a suit against Saregama India Ltd. In a copyright infringement suit filed by Mr. Rishi Raj at the Delhi High Court, the Court dismissed two applications: one seeking an ex-parte ad interim injunction and the other seeking permission for filing additional documents. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Saregama’).

Apart from the film production, distribution and exhibition, Mr. Rishi Raj is also said to be engaged in the business of acquiring negative rights of various cinematograph films from different producers. Mr. Rishi Raj has claimed that recently he acquired negative rights of 144 films and by virtue of such acquisition, he is the exclusive owner of the aforesaid films as well as the copyright holder of all the rights including the performing copyrights in its stories, songs, music, etc. Mr. Rishi Raj alleged that Saregama is liable for piracy and copyright infringement, inasmuch as, it is involved in the unauthorised/unlicensed exploitation of sound recordings as well as audio-visuals of such songs.

Against this Saregama claimed that on a perusal of the agreements submitted by Mr. Rishi Raj, it is evident that the rights transferred by the producers/right holders of the cinematograph films to Mr. Rishi Raj are not exclusive. Saregama further stated that the rights in the sound recordings and cinematograph films as a whole can be assigned to not just a single but multiple entities as well. It further stated that the producers have only transferred the right to receive royalties from the gramophone companies to Mr. Rishi Raj and that no rights in the cinematograph films themselves have been assigned to him. The rights to the song and music of the cinematograph film were assigned by the producers to Saregama. Thus, making Saregama the actual owner of the copyright in the sound recordings by virtue of provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court held that it would need to further examine the issue of Mr. Rishi Raj’s exclusive rights in the cinematographic films and dismissed the aforementioned application stating that no prima facie case was made out in favour of Mr. Rishi Raj.

In January 2020, Mr. Rishi Raj along with the plaint annexed copies of 58 agreements in respect of the cinematograph films in support of his claim against Saregama. However, at a later stage Rishi Raj filed 9 more agreements which were entered into with various producers/negative right holders and which he submitted that were not filed earlier due to an inadvertent error. Against this, Saregama submitted that Mr. Rishi Raj has not been able to provide sufficient and reasonable explanation for filing the additional documents at a later stage even though these would have been in his possession while filing the present suit.

With regards to the application for filing additional documents, the Court observed that as per the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaintiff has to file a list of all documents in his power, and their photocopies pertaining to the suit along with the plaint. Similarly, he/ she also has to file a declaration on oath that all documents in his/ her power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings have been disclosed . The Court held that in the present case Mr. Rishi Raj did file the afore-noted declaration by way of affidavit. However, it is specifically noted that the suit was filed in 2017 whereas the application for filing additional documents had been filed three years later, that is in 2020. The Delhi High Court refused to grant permission to Mr. Rishi Raj to submit these additional documents, stating that “inadvertent error” was not sufficient reasonable cause to file them at the current stage.

*SHRI RISHI RAJ v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD HIGH COURT OF DELHI CS(COMM) 403/2017