‘Why this Kolaveri’ row: Sony music’s plea dismissed

Justice P Velmurugan before whom the plea moved by SMEPL represented by its director Sumit Chatterjee came up said, “It is averred in the complaint that the petitioners (SMEPL) have infringed the rights assigned in the assignment deed. Further there are allegations in the complaint against these petitioners. Therefore, this court is not inclined to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., when, there are specific allegations levelled against all the petitioners herein. This court does not find any merits in these petitions.”

But, the judge on dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner said “Since, these matters are pending from 2013, the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the case within three months. Both the parties are directed to cooperate for the speedy disposal of the case.”

“If the petitioners are not cooperating to dispose of the case within the stipulated time, the order of dispense with the personal appearance shall stand automatically cancelled and the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law,” Justice Velmurugan added.

Counsel appearing for SMEPL submitted that there is an assignment agreement between the parties, and they were given all the rights including translation from Tamil to other languages. Once entire rights assigned to SMEPL, it is for them to decide their works and have not committed any offence under Section 63 of Copyrights Act.

It was also submitted that once, the dispute is civil in nature, the Magistrate has no power to take cognizance of the complaint.

The counsel appearing for R K Productions Pvt Ltd represented by Manikantan, however, submitted that, as per the averments in the terms sheet, the rights have been assigned only to translate from Tamil to Telugu alone and not to Hindi or any other languages.

As per the assignment term sheet, right has been given only for two languages and not more than that. Hence, all the petitioners are liable for the offence under Section 63 of Copyrights Act, the counsel said.