Has Perpetual Rights To Exploit Music & Songs Belonging To Estate: Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit Of Late OP Ralhan’s Daughter In Copyright Case
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Suit which was filed concerning the claim in respect of certain musical works forming part of cinematographic films produced by Ralhan Productions.
Justice Manish Pitale, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Suit filed by Rupali P. Shah, daughter of late O.P. Ralhan who was the Bollywood producer and director, in a copyright case.
The said Suit was filed concerning the claim of Rupali in respect of certain musical works forming part of cinematographic films produced by Ralhan Productions of which her late father was the owner and subsequently she took charge of the same.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held, “… this Court is of the opinion that issue Nos.2, 4 and 5 deserve to be answered in favour of the contesting defendants and against the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the contesting defendants infringed upon copyright belonging to the estate of O. P. Ralhan and that, defendant No.2 has proved that it has perpetual rights to exploit the music and the songs belonging to the estate of O. P. Ralhan and also holds perpetual right to grant licence to others in respect of the said music and songs.”
Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat and Advocate Rohan Kadam appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff while Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar and Advocate Naresh Thacker appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants need to be restrained from exploiting musical works of films produced by Ralhan Productions. It was her case that on a proper reading of the agreements, whereby certain rights were assigned to the Defendants, after specific time, they were no longer authorized to continue to exploit the works. In that context, ancillary reliefs were also sought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. O.P. Ralhan, late father of the Plaintiff, who was the owner of Ralhan Productions, undertook production of cinematographic films, which also contained musical works and songs. Between 1963 and 1983, he produced 7 films, being the producer and owner of such creative works associated with the films. The Plaintiff was born in 1964 and as per the Will left by her father, which was probated in the year 2013, she became the owner of productions undertaken by her father.
The Plaintiff’s father had executed agreements concerning the said films, thereby assigning to the predecessor of the Defendant No. 2 rights in the works of songs and recordings forming part of the 7 films. In the year 1999, he died leaving behind his Will, bequeathing rights in properties including the said works in favour of the Plaintiff. The Will was probated in the year 2013. In the years 2004 and 2005, the Plaintiff addressed certain communications to the said Defendant, asking for royalty statements and payments of royalty under the said agreements executed in favour of the predecessor of the Defendant. After a gap of more than 4 years, the Plaintiff sent a letter through her Advocate to the Defendant, informing that none of the agreements were valid and subsisting.
She further claimed that the Defendant failed and neglected in furnishing statement of royalty payable from time to time. Such claims were refuted by the Defendant and in 2011, the Plaintiff came across a commercial advertisement on television issued by the Defendant No. 1 wherein a son from film ‘Talash’ was used, which formed part of the said 7 films. The Plaintiff asked to refrain from using the said song but it was informed to her that the Defendant was the absolute owner of the copyright in sound recordings and underlying musical and literary works of ‘Talash’ film. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the Suit, seeking perpetual injunction.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “As regards issue No.3, considering that the copy of the licence agreement dated 22.11.2011 is placed on record and proved by defendant No.1, this Court finds that the said defendant has been able to prove that it indeed had licence in respect of the song forming part of the film ‘Talash’. The licence was issued by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. As this Court has already reached findings in favour of defendant No.2 with regard to perpetual rights of exploiting songs contained in the said films, in respect of further grant of licence, the aforesaid issue No.3 has to be answered in favour of the defendant No.1.”
The Court noted that the Plaintiff has claimed that she had no personal knowledge of the subject agreements because she was born in 1964 and she was herself a child when the subject agreements were executed and that the existence of some of the subject agreements came to her knowledge only when 2006 letter was received from Defendant No. 2.
“It is also to be noted that while the plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.2 had infringed upon the copyright belonging to the estate of the said O. P. Ralhan, she does not appear to have made any efforts to produce the subject agreements or to make any efforts for production of the same. It is also found that all the subject agreements do not appear to be on record and three of such agreements are on record. This Court has perused the clauses contained therein to find that wide-ranging rights were indeed assigned under the said agreements”, it added.
The Court, therefore, held that the Plaintiff failed to make efforts to place on record the subject agreements and the allegations made against the Defendants appear to be based on rights in the copyright belonging to the estate of O.P. Ralhan.
“But, considering the overall effect of the oral and documentary material on record, it would not be possible for this Court to reach a conclusion that the plaintiff can be said to be guilty of deliberately suppressing documents. The documents having come on record, detailed submissions have been already made on behalf of the rival parties, which this Court has considered to reach appropriate conclusions. Therefore, issue No.6 can be answered by holding that the plaintiff cannot be said to be guilty of suppression”, it further said.
The Court also remarked that although on the one hand, the Plaintiff has alleged that royalty payments were not made and on the other hand, the Defendant No.2 claims that such payments were made, the material on record shows certain crucial admissions made by the Plaintiff.
“A document on record i.e. letter dated 21.07.2009 shows that the plaintiff herself acknowledged the receipt of a specific amount towards part payment of royalty. Even in cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that certain amounts were received towards royalty payments. This is in stark contrast to the allegations made on behalf of the plaintiff about royalty payments not being made. There is also material placed on record on behalf of the defendant No.2 to show that amounts were forwarded to the plaintiff from time to time towards royalty payments, including payments for non-physical exploitation of the works. It is also stated that when efforts were made to make royalty payments, the plaintiff refused to accept. In the face of such material, issue No.7 is answered in favour of defendant No.2 and against the plaintiff”, it added.
The Court clarified that it would be open for the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 to work out the aspect of payment of royalties on the basis of the subject agreements. It concluded that the Plaintiff failed to make out a case for granting reliefs as claimed in the Suit.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Suit.
Cause Title- Rupali P. Shah v. Adani Wilmer Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8516)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, Advocates Rohan Kadam, Shirley Mody, and Rucha Vaidya.
Defendants: Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Advocates Naresh Thacker, Shailendra Poria, Samarth Saxena, Gaurav Mehta, Chakrapani Misra, Jigar Parmar, and Pranali Vyas.
