Bombay High Court Dismisses Copyright Suit Over Films Manzil, Parwana; Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs On Filmmaker

The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a decades-old copyright infringement suit filed by filmmaker Rajiv Suri against Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. concerning the Hindi feature films Manzil and Parwana, characterizing the litigation as a “gross abuse of the process of law” and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh on the plaintiff.

While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that Rajiv Suri had approached the court with “unclean hands” by suppressing a Memorandum of Understanding and a Deed of Assignment, which showed that disputes relating to Manzil had already been settled after payment of compensation and that the rights in Parwana had been assigned to a third party before the suit was filed.

“Having unconditionally settled and withdrawn the proceedings after having received consideration for the same, the conduct of the Plaintiff for damages in respect of Manzil in suing by combining it with a claim relating to Parwana is clearly malafide,” the Court observed.

The legal dispute began in 2000 when Rajiv Suri sought a decree of Rs 15 lakh with interest and a permanent injunction to restrain Hinduja Global Solutions from exhibiting or telecasting the feature films Manzil and Parwana without his permission.

In his pleadings, the filmmaker claimed that he had been a partner of the firm Ambika Chitra, which owned the films, and that after the firm's dissolution in 1998 he had retained rights in Parwana and the right to sue for damages in respect of Manzil.

He alleged that the film Manzil had been unlawfully telecast in November 13, 1997 on the cable channel “InCablenet”, which he claimed was owned by the defendant, and that the defendant later telecast Parwana on May 18, 2000 without his consent, prompting him to file the suit.

In its defence, Hinduja Global Solutions contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed because the plaintiff had suppressed material documents, namely a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20 September 1999 and a Deed of Assignment dated 5 October 1999.

According to the company, the MoU recorded that disputes relating to the telecast of Manzil had been amicably settled after compensation was paid, while the Deed of Assignment showed that satellite and cable rights in Parwana had been assigned to Zee Telefilms Limited for a period of five years.

Hinduja argued that since the plaintiff had already received compensation for Manzil and had divested himself of rights in Parwana, he had no locus to institute the suit.

Accepting these submissions, the Court held that the suppression of the MoU and the Assignment Deed was wilful, deliberate and mala fide. The judge noted that the assignment executed by the plaintiff vested exclusive rights in Zee Telefilms for the relevant period, and that the alleged telecast of Parwana as well as the filing of the suit took place during the subsistence of that assignment. The Court also recorded that Zee Telefilms, the assignee of the rights, had not even been made a party to the proceedings.

Insofar as Manzil was concerned, the Court found that the dissolution deed of 1998 did not confer on the plaintiff any enforceable right to sue and that the MoU clearly recorded that disputes relating to that film had already been settled after payment of compensation.

“The conduct of the Plaintiff, in the present matter, in my view, clearly constitutes an abuse of the process of law and of this Hon'ble Court. The Plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court despite having divested himself of the very rights on the basis of which the Suit is filed. Such conduct cannot be countenanced and therefore must be met with an order of costs,” the court said.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the suit and directed the plaintiff to pay costs of Rs 10 lakh to the defendant within eight weeks, failing which the amount will carry interest at 8% per annum.