*1* 10-nms-2179-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION srj NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2179 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1552 OF 2009 P. Ramgopal Varma .. Plaintiff V/s. The Film Writers Association & Others .. Defendants Ms. Sunita Pant, for Plaintiff. Mr. H.W.Kane a/w. Ms. M. Bukhari, for Defendant No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd November, 2010. P.C. 1 The suit is filed for a declaration that the decision dated 8th April, 2009 passed by the Dispute Settlement Committee (DCS) of Defendant No.1 is bad in law. The Plaintiff has sought restrain orders against implementation of this decision. 2 It appears that the Plaintiff is a producer of feature films. He has also directed certain films. Defendant No.1 is a trade union comprising of writers whereas Defendant No.2 is the original complainant on whose complaint decision has been rendered. The Defendant No.2 is *2* 10-nms-2179-09 also member of the Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 alleges to be a writer and director of the said film. Defendant No.3 is the story and screenplay writer of the film “AGYAAT”. Defendant No.4 is a dialogue writer of this film. 3 The complaint was made by Defendant No.2 to the Defendant No.1 that the Plaintiff has copied the story and concept while making this feature film. The story and concept is that of the Defendant No.2. Earlier, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 had some discussion on the making of the subject film. However, despite being aware of the original concept and story of the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff went and made that film without in any manner acquiring the rights and compensating the said Defendant No.2. 4 The film has already been released. The Dispute Settlement Committee of Defendant No.1 has rendered the decision on the complaint made by Defendant No.2. In the Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Defendant No.1, it has been pointed out that the Defendant No.1 is a trade body registered under the Trade Unions Act. 1926 and it renders services by taking care of the problems of film writers in India. It registers screenplays, concepts and dialogues of writers. It is also responsible for settling disputes. It is stated that Defendant No.2 made a complaint alleging that he is author of a story which is registered with the Defendant *3* 10-nms-2179-09 No.1 on 20th December, 2005. At the relevant time, Defendant No.2 had several meetings with the Plaintiff and it was agreed that the Plaintiff would produce a film on the story of Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.2 would direct the film. However, he did not abide by this assurance and directed the said feature film “AGYAAT” and based on Defendant No.2’s story, hence, the Plaintiff has violated the Defendant No.2’s copyright. 5 The Plaintiff denied this contention of Defendant No.2 and submitted that the story of the film was not based on the script of Defendant No.2. The whole story is based on screenplay and script of Defendant No.4 and one Mr. Vikram Chavan. 6 The grievance on behalf the Plaintiff is that if the copy right of the Defendant No.2 in the said concept or story has been violated, then should file a civil suit in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not to go before the Committee which has no right in law to adjudicate on copyright dispute. 7 Based on this plea, it is argued that the decision of the committee is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. It is urged that the decision being prima facie bad in law, its implementation should be stayed. After perusing the plaint and the annexures and the affidavits filed on record, I am of the view that as the subject film has already been released, the Plaintiff is not called upon by the committee to pay any sums *4* 10-nms-2179-09 or compensate the Defendant No.2. It only decided that the claim of Defendant No.2 – Mr. Sajit Warrier is justified as per the documents and the amount should be deposited with the Defendant No.1 within 15 days from the receipt of the letter, a copy of which is at page 133 of the paper book. 8 It is not clear as to whether this decision can be enforced by the Defendant No.2 as a decree of a Civil Court or otherwise, as there is nothing on record which shows that the amount will be recovered without due process of law. If the Defendant No.2 has to recover these sums, as directed by Defendant No.1/its committee, the Defendant No.2 will have to take steps in accordance with law. There is no allegation that the Plaintiff will be forced to pay any sums under duress or coercion or that there will be any adverse consequences of not abiding by the Decision. For all these reasons, there is no case made out for interim relief. The Notice of Motion is, therefore, dismissed. In the light of this conclusion, the issue of jurisdiction need not be gone into nor the question of power of the committee of determining the issue of similarity between the stories of the parties. All contention in that behalf are kept open. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)