Case: Vicco Laboratories  Vs. Art Commercia Advertising Pvt.Ltd.

upon the appreciation of evidence on record and does not give rise to any question of such importance as to be decided by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is clear from the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court ;1. that the respondents have not undertaken the production of the said serial at the instance of the petitioners. G.K. Pendharkar, the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 was asked to come to view the format of the programme and the petitioners were not even acquainted with the format of the serial while the respondents had taken concrete steps in this regard prior to the letter dated 11.7.1984.2. That the petitioners had agreed to sponsor only 26 episodes whereas the respondents had agreed to produce 52 episodes and had given a firm commitment to that effect to Doordarshan as is clear from the letter dated 12.7.1984 sent by the respondents to Doordarshan. The trial court thus rightly noted that there was no agency between the parties.3. That the titles of each episode indicated that respondent No. 2 is the producer of the said serial and the petitioners are only the sponsors. As late as on 22.4.1985, the petitioners communicated their displeasure on this display in the episodes as to the titles. However, the titles continued to show Mr. S.S. Oberoi as the producer of the serial and the petitioners did not withhold payments.4. That the courts below have refuted the claim of the petitioners that the bill dated 19.3.1984 established the fact that the production work had been started by the respondents at the behest of the petitioners. It has been proved that the said bill was ante-dated and raised by the respondents in July, 1984 ostensibly for the purpose of benefiting the petitioners for their obtaining tax concessions.5. That the Doordarshan, which have been impleaded as a party, in their written statement stated that they recognize the respondents as producers of the said serial and recognize the petitioners as sponsors only.6. That the evidence of Mr. S.S. Gill, who gave evidence on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry that he was not acquainted with Mr. Pendharkar and that Doordarshan had no direct connection with the petitioners but only with the respondents as producers on the Director stood un-impeached. In this further evidence, Mr. Gill stated that some time in the month of May/June, 1984 he had met Kundan Shah and requested to make a comedy serial for Doordarshan which clearly indicated that it is only the respondents who were dealing with Doordarshan.7. That the video rights were assigned to Esquire Distributing and Servicing Pvt. Ltd. by the respondents pursuant to letters dated 14.12.1984 and 15.11.1985 and had received royalty for the video rights and the original U-matic cassettes were returned to them by Esquire Distributing and Servicing Pvt. Ltd. as their property.8. That there was no transfer of rights in favour of the petitioners by the respondents in the aforesaid letters and no consideration whatsoever was paid to the respondents for issuing the said letters which have no legal consequences and it was after the petitioners received the letter dated 19.10.1985 from Esquire Distributing and Servicing Pvt. Ltd. that the respondents were asked by the petitioners to issue another letter in this regard.12. Thus the pleadings and the evidence on record clearly indicated that the respondents were not the agents of the petitioners for the purpose of producing the said serial. The aggregate amount of Rs. 76.50 lakhs which was paid to the respondents for 60 episodes is not the amount for cost of production but the fixed price for sponsoring the said serial in order to link up their advertisement with the serial and avail substantial benefit of concessional rate under the scheme envisaged by Doordarshan. The respondents were not liable to render accounts to the petitioners who paid them a fixed sum for sponsoring the programme. If the expenses were less, the petitioners did not ask for a refund and the profit or loss was entirely of the respondents. It is clear that the bills that have been raised were only to accommodate the petitioners from the circumstances narrated above. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate reference to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions whether such availment of benefit could be taken or not pursuant to the amendment effected to the provisions relating to computation of business income at different stages may not be very germane to the present case. It is probable that the respondents had obliged the petitioners by issuing these bills because the bills cannot be read in isolation but with reference to surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the view taken by the courts below in this regard appears to be correct.13. So far as the contentions raised on the basis of Section 17 of the Copyright Act is concerned, it is clear that the petitioners were not able to establish that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 produced the said serial (1) as the agents of the petitioners; (2) in the course of their employment with the petitioners; (3) for valuable consideration paid by the petitioners to them; and (iv) at the instance of the petitioners. When these factors had not been established and the suit is itself not dependent on the interpretation of Section 17 of the Copyright Act, pleadings and issues raised did not attract the same. On appreciation of evidence, the courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondents did not make the said serial for valuable consideration at the instance of the petitioners and in view of the findings of fact, the claim of copyright or ownership in respect of the serial under Section 17(b) and (c) would not arise at all. Thus we find absolutely no merit in this petition. We decline to interfere with the order made by the High Court affirming the decree of the trial court. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. no costs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. We have carefully considered the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. We are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for consideration by this Court. The matter rests purely upon the appreciation of evidence on record and does not give rise to any question of such importance as to be decided by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is clear from the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court ;1. that the respondents have not undertaken the production of the said serial at the instance of the petitioners. G.K. Pendharkar, the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 was asked to come to view the format of the programme and the petitioners were not even acquainted with the format of the serial while the respondents had taken concrete steps in this regard prior to the letter dated 11.7.1984.2. That the petitioners had agreed to sponsor only 26 episodes whereas the respondents had agreed to produce 52 episodes and had given a firm commitment to that effect to Doordarshan as is clear from the letter dated 12.7.1984 sent by the respondents to Doordarshan. The trial court thus rightly noted that there was no agency between the parties.3. That the titles of each episode indicated that respondent No. 2 is the producer of the said serial and the petitioners are only the sponsors. As late as on 22.4.1985, the petitioners communicated their displeasure on this display in the episodes as to the titles. However, the titles continued to show Mr. S.S. Oberoi as the producer of the serial and the petitioners did not withhold payments.4. That the courts below have refuted the claim of the petitioners that the bill dated 19.3.1984 established the fact that the production work had been started by the respondents at the behest of the petitioners. It has been proved that the said bill was ante-dated and raised by the respondents in July, 1984 ostensibly for the purpose of benefiting the petitioners for their obtaining tax concessions.5. That the Doordarshan, which have been impleaded as a party, in their written statement stated that they recognize the respondents as producers of the said serial and recognize the petitioners as sponsors only.6. That the evidence of Mr. S.S. Gill, who gave evidence on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry that he was not acquainted with Mr. Pendharkar and that Doordarshan had no direct connection with the petitioners but only with the respondents as producers on the Director stood un-impeached. In this further evidence, Mr. Gill stated that some time in the month of May/June, 1984 he had met Kundan Shah and requested to make a comedy serial for Doordarshan which clearly indicated that it is only the respondents who were dealing with Doordarshan.7. That the video rights were assigned to Esquire Distributing and Servicing Pvt. Ltd. by the respondents pursuant to letters dated 14.12.1984 and 15.11.1985 and had received royalty for the video rights and the original U-matic cassettes were returned to them by Esquire Distributing and Servicing Pvt. Ltd. as their property.8. That there was no transfer of rights in favour of the petitioners by the respondents in the aforesaid letters and no consideration whatsoever was paid to the respondents for issuing the said letters which have no legal consequences and it was after the petitioners received the letter dated 19.10.1985 from Esquire Distributing and Servicing Pvt. Ltd. that the respondents were asked by the petitioners to issue another letter in this regard.12. Thus the pleadings and the evidence on record clearly indicated that the respondents were not the agents of the petitioners for the purpose of producing the said serial. The aggregate amount of Rs. 76.50 lakhs which was paid to the respondents for 60 episodes is not the amount for cost of production but the fixed price for sponsoring the said serial in order to link up their advertisement with the serial and avail substantial benefit of concessional rate under the scheme envisaged by Doordarshan. The respondents were not liable to render accounts to the petitioners who paid them a fixed sum for sponsoring the programme. If the expenses were less, the petitioners did not ask for a refund and the profit or loss was entirely of the respondents. It is clear that the bills that have been raised were only to accommodate the petitioners from the circumstances narrated above.However, the learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate reference to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions whether such availment of benefit could be taken or not pursuant to the amendment effected to the provisions relating to computation of business income at different stages may not be very germane to the present case.It is probable that the respondents had obliged the petitioners by issuing these bills because the bills cannot be read in isolation but with reference to surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the view taken by the courts below in this regard appears to be correct.13. So far as the contentions raised on the basis of Section 17 of the Copyright Act is concerned, it is clear that the petitioners were not able to establish that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 produced the said serial (1) as the agents of the petitioners; (2) in the course of their employment with the petitioners; (3) for valuable consideration paid by the petitioners to them; and (iv) at the instance of the petitioners. When these factors had not been established and the suit is itself not dependent on the interpretation of Section 17 of the Copyright Act, pleadings and issues raised did not attract the same. On appreciation of evidence, the courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondents did not make the said serial for valuable consideration at the instance of the petitioners and in view of the findings of fact, the claim of copyright or ownership in respect of the serial under Section 17(b) and (c) would not arise at all.