Sanjiv Khanna JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. These appeals involve a common question of law and arise out of a common impugned Order dated 30th January, 2006 passed in eight different suits. As the facts and issues involved in these Appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common Order.
2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs who have filed eight suits seeking permanent injunction against the defendant in each suit. Each defendant is providing cable television services through their associate or affiliated companies, agents, franchises or distributors.
3. The appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint have alleged violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Actor short) by the defendant/ respondent. It is alleged that the appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of copyright in respect of the cinematographic films either as film producers or as assignees and their right as owners of copyright in cinematographic films is being violated by the respondent-defendant who should be stayed from broadcasting the said films on their cable network. Some instances of the alleged violations have been mentioned in the plaint.
4. Learned Single Judge by the impugned Order dated 30th January, 2006 after referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mirabai Films Pvt. Ltd. v. city Cable Network and Ors. reported in 2003 (26) PTC 473 DB has passed an interim order restraining the respondent-defendant from telecasting/screening/ exhibiting the said cinematographic films on their network and/or from allowing feed signals to be used by the distributors, franchises, assignees and cable operators for the purpose. However, it has been clarified by the learned Single Judge that the said interim order would operate only for the films, the list of which has been enclosed with the plaint. Learned Single Judge specifically rejected the prayer of the appellants-plaintiffs that interim injunction order should also be passed in respect of cinematographic films which have not yet been produced and will be made in future. Learned Single Judge referred to Section 18 of the Act and held that copyright in a cinematographic film comes into existence only after the film has been produced and cause of action for any violation in respect of the said cinematographic film would arise only thereafter.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent and will refer to their contentions during the course of this Order.
6. The object of copyright law is to prevent copying of physical material and form in the field of literature and Article It is essentially a negative right given to the author, in the sense that the Act does not confer the owner with a right to publish his work but the right to prevent third parties from doing that which th........