N. Patherya, J. - (1.) By an order dated 16.4.2010 an order was passed in terms of prayers [f], [g], [h] and [i] till 20.4.2010. The petitioner seeks extension of such interim order while the respondents seek vacating thereof.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 3A of the agreement of 1981 assigned to it -[i] the copyright for making records of all contract works and [ii] the copyright, performing right and all other rights, title and interest in the literary, dramatic and musical works. Therefore, it was entitled to execute the agreement dated 11.2.2010. Clause 4[a] and [c] recognises the other rights assigned by the producer in favour of the company. In fact all rights and obligations to the agreement were to apply to the works included or to be included in the producer's film commenced or under production. Royalty both physical and non -physical has been paid to the Mehras. From a reading of the statement of royalty it will appear that synchronization fees or fees on account of films has also been paid and the same has been accepted. Therefore, the agreement is not restricted to payment of royalty in respect of records or manufacture and sale of records alone. All other rights, title and interest, therefore, be not given a restricted meaning and in view of Sec. 2[a][iv] and [v] which defines adaptation all that has been done by the agreement of 11.2.2010 is to allow re -recording and synchronization of the works which it is entitled to as per the agreement. The agreement in present form came up for consideration in the case reported in : AIR 1997 CAL 63 and has been approved. By virtue of Sec. 14[a][iv], [vi] and [vii] the company has exclusive right to make any adaptation of the literary, dramatic or musical works assigned to it and all that is done by the said agreement is to adapt the lyrics and music. Therefore, for all the said reasons, the interim order passed be continued.
(3.) Counsel for the Mehras submits that by the agreement of 1981 all that was assigned was the sound recording and the said was also understood by the company as it obtained registration only in respect of the sound recording from the Registrar of Copyrights in 2000. By virtue of such copyright the company was vested with a right to make records of all contract works. Besides the aforesaid the company also was given the copyright, performing right and all other rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the producer's films. Therefore, the company was entitled to exercise rights in respect of such contract works as in the producer's films. It was for purposes of manufacture and sale of records that the sound track was to be exclusively made over to the company by the producer Mehra and it is in respect of the records that royalty was paid. The additional royalty paid was in respect of performances of contract works and, therefore, was in addition to the royalty paid on account of records. By virtue of the said agreement, therefore, the petitioner company is not entitled to allow the said works to be exploited in the film "Houseful". The word 'synchronization' as held in : AIR 1977 SC 1443 is the combination of the visual portion and the audio portion. No specific clause has been disclosed by the company, which warrants exploitation of the said song in the film "Houseful" although sought by letter. The suit of the company is based on groundless threats and, therefore, restrain of civil remedy sought. Suits have now been filed by the Mehras initially in the Mumbai High Court and on the undertaking to withdraw the same a suit has also been filed in this Court. Therefore, restrain orders be vacated.;