Madras HC Awards ₹20 Lakhs Compensation in Amma Memorial Digital Project Dispute

Summary

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court adjudicated a dispute concerning the Amma Memorial Digital Project. It was held that while the creator of digital interactive concepts for the Amma Memorial Museum retained copyright over his visualisations and demo materials, the defendant did not infringe these rights because the works were shared for project use. The Court found no binding profit-sharing agreement between the parties but recognised that the plaintiff had provided substantial non-gratuitous services. It rejected the Plaintiff's demands for ₹2.5-crore damages claim and profit-share, and awarded ₹20 lakhs in reasonable compensation with 9% interest and ₹5 lakhs in costs.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Mr. Praveen Raj Jayachandran, Managing Director of Hexr Factory Immersive Tech Pvt. Ltd., alleged that he conceived and developed various digital interactive concepts, including AI-based applications, 2D/3D animations, AR modules, and interactive displays, for the Amma Memorial Museum & Knowledge Park Project.

In June-July 2020, he shared presentations, demo builds, 3D renders, walkthroughs and interactive applications with the Defendant, Fusion VR, who was participating in the Government of Tamil Nadu’s tender process.

He claimed that the Defendant promised him 50% profit share for his contributions. Later, the Defendant shared a draft agreement offering only 40%. A dispute arose, and the Plaintiff stopped further work.

Plaintiff issued a legal notice in January 2021, and filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction against copyright infringement, damages of Rs. 2.5 crore, and costs.

The Defendant denied promising any profit share, claiming that Plaintiff merely provided a proposal/presentation, and asserted that most deliverables were completed solely by the Defendant’s team. It also stated the project profit was only Rs. 32.78 lakh.

Issues

The Court framed the following issues:

1. 1. Whether Plaintiff was engaged to develop concepts/software for the Amma Memorial Project, and on what terms.
   2. Whether the Plaintiff’s materials formed part of the final project implemented by the Defendant.
   3. Whether the Plaintiff delivered source code or other software deliverables.
   4. Whether the Plaintiff authored the works delivered and whether he retained copyright.
   5. Whether the Plaintiff can claim copyright over ideas/technology.
   6. Whether any binding agreement existed and if the Defendant violated it.
   7. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunction, damages, or profit share.
   8. What reliefs may be granted to the parties.

Arguments by Both Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• • Plaintiff argued that he invested substantial effort in conceptualising and creating eight interactive digital experiences, including virtual cycling, interactive chat, AR photo-booth, touch-and-throw, interactive quiz, and so on.
  • These materials were authored by him, as evidenced by documents and correspondence, and the Defendant had acknowledged his authorship.
  • Defendant promised him 50% profit share, but the later draft agreement of 40% was contrary to their earlier understanding.
  • Defendant used the Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials to secure the project and implement the execution, thereby infringing his rights.
  • Plaintiff claimed Defendant would earn around Rs. 5 crore, entitling him to Rs. 2.5 crore damages.

Defendant’s Arguments

• • Defendant argued that copyright does not protect ideas or concepts, and thus Plaintiff’s work was excluded as Plaintiff only provided an idea-level presentation.
  • It further argued that no written agreement was executed, and Plaintiff was only entitled to the proposed profit-sharing contingent on full completion of work, which Plaintiff never completed. Further, Plaintiff’s inputs were only preliminary and non-executable, and Plaintiff also failed to deliver source code or meet any formal deliverables required under the Government tender.
  • Due to this, Defendant independently developed the final applications, animations and interfaces, for which it incurred substantial costs.
  • Thus, its total profit was only Rs. 32.78 lakhs, making the Plaintiff’s massive damages claim baseless.
  • Defendant conceded that, at most, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable compensation for limited preliminary work, but not profit share.

Analysis by the Court

1. 1. Agreement, Compensation and Nature of Relationship

• • The parties did not execute any binding written agreement because they disagreed on the profit share (40% vs. 50%).
  • However, emails and messages clearly showed Plaintiff provided services non-gratuitously, and Defendant intended to compensate him.
  • Thus, a quasi-contract under Section 70, Contract Act was established, requiring the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff for the benefit enjoyed.

1. 2. Copyright and Infringement

• • Copyright doesn’t protect ideas, but protects the expression of ideas.
  • Plaintiff’s presentations, visualisations, technical documents and application builds attributed authorship to him. Defendant did not dispute this in correspondence.
  • However, because these materials were voluntarily shared for use in the project, their use for that purpose does not amount to infringement.
  • Plaintiff remains the owner of copyright in the materials he created.

1. 3. Extent of Plaintiff’s Work

• • Plaintiff created concept visualizations and demo builds, and worked on eight experiences.
  • But he admitted he did not complete the work (only about 70% of software programming).
  • He did not deliver source code, which was necessary for final implementation.
  • Defendant could use builds for presentations but had to complete programming independently.

1. 4. Damages and Profit Share

• • Plaintiff provided no evidence to substantiate his claim for Rs. 2.5 crore damages, including failure to prove actual loss.
  • Plaintiff abandoned the project before completion, and thus he is not entitled to profit share (whether 40% or 50%).
  • However, Defendant’s expenditure claims were also not adequately supported, as Defendant submitted quotations instead of invoices.
  • Court estimated software-related expenditure and profit margins using industry benchmarks and determined a reasonable compensation figure.

1. 5. Determination of Reasonable Compensation

• • Software-related expenses were estimated to be around Rs. 2.15 crores.
  • Industry margin of 20% suggested potential profit around Rs. 43 lakhs.
  • Plaintiff contributed concept creation and partial programming (70%), but not full deliverables.
  • Considering all factors, the court fixed reasonable compensation at Rs. 20 lakh, with 9% interest from the date of the plaint.

1. 6. Costs

• • Plaintiff partially succeeded and had paid Rs. 2,58,051/- as court fee.
  • Court awarded Rs. 5 lakh towards partial court fee, lawyer’s fees and litigation expenses.

Final Order

The Court rejected the prayer for damages due to lack of support, and denied permanent injunction as the project had been implemented prior to the suit being heard.

The suit was partly decreed, with the Court ordering the Defendant to:

• • pay the Plaintiff Rs. 20,00,000 as reasonable compensation for services rendered, with 9% interest per annum from the date of the plaint until realisation.
  • pay Rs. 5,00,000 as costs.

Earlier interim order restraining payment of Rs. 41 lakh to Defendant was lifted, subject to fulfillment of the decree.

Citation: Mr. Praveen Raj Jayachandran v. M/s Fusion VR, Madras High Court, 26 Sept 2025, 2025:MHC:2297. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164361660/.

Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun