A Madras High Court Commercial Division’s ex parte decree granting comprehensive injunctions, damages, and accounting in a copyright suit upholds established statutory principles but, rendered without contest, stands as binding precedent within its jurisdiction on procedural approach rather than substantive legal clarifications. The decision reaffirms that where infringement is proved ex parte, courts may grant the full suite of available remedies under the Copyright Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
C.S(COMM DIV)/71/2025 of Sun Tv Network Ltd Vs Asianet Digital Network Pvt Ltd CNR: HCMA010566662025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DECREED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Commercial Division) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Madras High Court jurisdiction on procedural handling and grant of reliefs in ex parte copyright matters. |
| Type of Law | Copyright Law (Copyright Act, 1957 and its amendments); Civil Procedure (CPC); Commercial Courts Act, 2015. |
| Questions of Law | Whether, upon uncontroverted evidence of copyright infringement, a Commercial Court may grant permanent and mandatory injunctions, damages, and account decree ex parte. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that when a defendant fails to appear and is set ex parte, and the plaintiff’s evidence unambiguously proves ownership and infringement, the court may grant the full reliefs sought under the Copyright Act, 1957—including permanent and mandatory injunctions, account of profits, damages, and costs. The ex parte procedure was strictly followed, with recording of evidence and marking of documents. The decision emphasizes that rights of copyright holders will be robustly protected where infringement is clear and unchallenged. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff, owner of copyrights over specified cinematograph films, alleged infringement by the defendant (Asianet Digital). Defendant failed to appear; summons were served, yet the defendant was set ex parte. Plaintiff led evidence through a witness (P.W.1) and documents including CDs. Relief sought included injunctions, surrender of infringing material, account of profits, damages, and costs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Madras High Court’s commercial division jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Commercial courts and High Courts in other jurisdictions in similar unchallenged infringement cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that all available remedies under the Copyright Act—including injunctions, account decrees, and damages—may be awarded, even ex parte, if evidence is uncontested.
- Demonstrates procedural rigor required in ex parte commercial suits, including proof by oral and documentary evidence.
- Reminder: Non-appearance of defendants will not prevent the court from granting full statutory relief if plaintiff’s case is sufficiently proved.
- This decision can be cited for procedural handling and relief structure in ex parte commercial copyright suits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted non-appearance of the defendant despite due service of summons.
- Set the defendant ex parte and directed recording of plaintiff’s evidence before the Additional Master.
- Plaintiff led oral evidence and produced 17 documents and a CD, all taken on record.
- On completion of evidence, suit listed for arguments. Absence of defendant repeated.
- The court found uncontroverted proof of plaintiff’s copyright and infringement by defendant.
- In accordance with established principles under the Copyright Act, 1957 and based on the evidence, the court granted the full suite of remedies sought: permanent injunction, mandatory injunction for surrender of infringing materials, account direction, damages, and costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiff)
- Sought permanent and mandatory injunctions to restrain and direct surrender of infringing materials.
- Requested an account of revenue earned through copyright infringement.
- Claimed Rs.1 crore as damages and costs for the defendant’s unauthorized use of specified cinematograph films.
Respondent (Defendant)
- No appearance; set ex parte; no arguments advanced.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Sun TV Network Ltd., alleged copyright infringement against Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. concerning three cinematograph films and associated works. Despite due service of summons, the defendant failed to appear, resulting in ex parte proceedings. Plaintiff’s authorized signatory provided oral evidence, supported by extensive documentary proof including a CD, to establish ownership of the works and acts of infringement.
Statutory Analysis
- Suit filed invoking sections 51, 52, 55, and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended) concerning infringement and remedies.
- Procedural foundation under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, and Section 7 (proviso) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- The court applied statutory provisions authorizing grant of injunctions, damages, and account of profits upon finding of infringement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None. Single judge, no dissent or concurring opinion recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- Followed Commercial Court procedure for ex parte suits, including referring recording of oral and documentary evidence to the Additional Master, before returning to division bench for final judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision applies and reinforces established statutory principles and court procedures for uncontested copyright infringement suits.
Citations
- Neutral Citation: Yes/No (as per record)
- Madras High Court Commercial Division judgment dated 01.09.2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.71 of 2025
- No SCC/AIR/MANU citation provided in the judgment text