logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5915 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CONT. P. No. 12 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
Parties : Arunachalam Prakash Versus A. Jithu & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A. Arvind Athithan, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Subashree, M. Ganesan, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 17-08-2026
Head Note :-
Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 11,  Section 12 -

Case Referred:
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd vs Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association and Others - (1977 2 SCC 820)
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Contemnor(s) Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in O.A.No.272 of 2024.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner armed with an interim order dated 21.08.2024 has now alleged wilful disobedience of the said order of this Court by the act of the respondents releasing a song which was specifically made for the movie “Amigo”. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the music and song were composed specifically for this movie, the respondents had no right to independently release the song even though he may have a claim of copy right over the song independently, as it co-exists with the copy right of the producer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the respondents had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.37,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Only) before the release of the film which was scheduled to be released on 23.08.2024. This Court, by order dated 21.08.2024:-

                     “The learned counsel appearing for the respondents agreed to make a payment of Rs.37,00,000/- before release of film, which is to be scheduled on 23rd of this month, 2024.

                     2. Recording the said submission, it is made clear that without making the payment of Rs.37,00,000/- on or before 22.08.2024, the respondent shall not release the film on 23.08.2024.

                     List on 02.09.2024.”

4. Relying on the said order, which was subsequently extended and made absolute by me on 25.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a clear violation of the interim order and the respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.08.2024. Learned counsel has also produced the print out of the Youtube page which also describes the name of the movie, Director and all other details and descriptions pertaining to the movie. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the song being part of the movie, release of the song also is in violation of the order dated 21.08.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there is no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and though the amount, as directed by this Court, has not been paid by the respondents, the interim order was only pertaining to the release of the movie as such, which admittedly has not been released. Learned counsel further states that the parties are before the Arbitrator and the main disputes are being agitated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He would further state that the respondent has transferred the musical rights in respect of the film “Amigo” to Star Music, who, in turn, had released the song as a Promotional Video in Youtube, for a length of 41 seconds. The respondents have in fact not, in any manner, released the song as alleged by the petitioner. Learned counsel also states that the song is not in public domain and it is only for private circulation and in this regard, learned counsel for the respondents also produced the screenshot of the Youtube page concerned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however state that originally the song was in public domine and only after notice was issued by the petitioner, the respondents have chosen to move the song to a private domain.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. As I have already extracted the interim order granted by this Court on 21.08.2024, it only contemplated that the respondents were required to pay a sum of Rs.37,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Only) to enable them to release the film on or before 23.08.2024. Admittedly, the said sum has not been paid by the respondents. This Court made it clear that without making payment of Rs.37,00,000/-, the movie shall not be released.

9. Admittedly, the movie has not been released till date. It is complained of by the petitioner that the release of a song from the movie would amount to wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. I can understand if the copy right of the petitioner has been protected in which event, the counsel for the petitioner was well within his right to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd vs Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association and Others reported in (1977) 2 SCC 820. However, what is complained of is only alleged violation of an interim order passed in an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in and by which the release of the movie alone was restrained.

10. In such circumstances and more specifically when the respondents have not released the song in Youtube, but, had transferred of musical rights to Star Music and the said Star Music, in turn, released one of the songs in Youtube, I do not see any wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, warranting this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.

11. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal