Summary
In the case of Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and others, the Bombay High Court held that the Copyright Assignment Agreement for the film Will You Marry Me was valid, subsisting, and binding on the producer. The court held that the producer could not create third party rights in music rights and distribution rights after the subsisting assignment in favour of the plaintiff. The court granted declarations of the plaintiff’s rights, held the later agreements void and unenforceable against the plaintiff, and granted permanent injunctive relief and costs.
Copyright Assignment Dispute
The plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, the producer of the film Will You Marry Me, executed a Term Sheet dated 1 April 2010. Under this Term Sheet, Defendant No. 1 agreed to assign to the plaintiff in perpetuity, free from encumbrances, all existing and future worldwide rights, title, and interest in the film, including the exclusive right to exhibit, transmit, distribute, or otherwise utilise the film, for a stated consideration.
In pursuance of the Term Sheet, Defendant No. 1 executed a Copyright Assignment Agreement dated 17 May 2010. The agreement assigned to the plaintiff the copyright and related worldwide rights for distribution, marketing, release, and exploitation of the film in perpetuity.
The plaintiff led evidence of payments made under the Copyright Assignment Agreement and related arrangements. The plaintiff alleged that despite the subsisting assignment, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement assigning music rights of Will You Marry Me to Defendant No. 3 and also assigned distribution rights of the film to Defendant No. 5. The plaintiff also relied on legal notices calling upon Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to remedy breaches and refund amounts, which remained unanswered.
The defendants filed written statements, but none of them led evidence and none cross examined the plaintiff’s witness. The suit proceeded to final hearing on the plaintiff’s evidence.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the plaintiff proved that the Copyright Assignment Agreement dated 17 May 2010 relating to Will You Marry Me was valid, subsisting, and binding, and that the plaintiff held the assigned rights.
- Whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 breached the Copyright Assignment Agreement and infringed the plaintiff’s rights by assigning music rights and distribution rights to third parties.
- Whether Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 proved lawful and independent acquisition of any rights in Will You Marry Me despite the plaintiff’s prior assignment.
- What final reliefs followed in relation to declarations, injunctions, and costs.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff on assignment, breach, and infringement
1. The plaintiff argued that the Term Sheet and the Copyright Assignment Agreement created an assignment in perpetuity of worldwide rights in Will You Marry Me in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff submitted that it made payments under the arrangement and proved them through documentary evidence and witness testimony.
3. The plaintiff contended that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 breached specific clauses of the Copyright Assignment Agreement, including obligations connected with time being of the essence, exclusivity, and negative covenants.
4. The plaintiff argued that after a valid and subsisting assignment, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no authority to create third party rights and that later agreements for music rights and distribution rights were void and unenforceable against the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff relied on the defendants’ failure to lead evidence and failure to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness and asked the court to accept the plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence.
Defendants on denial and alleged independent acquisition
1. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 pleaded in their written statements that they acquired rights independently before the filing of the suit.
2. The defendants did not lead evidence to support these pleas and did not cross examine the plaintiff’s witness on the plaintiff’s prior assignment and subsisting rights.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the plaintiff led cogent documentary evidence to establish payment of an aggregate sum under the Copyright Assignment Agreement and related arrangements. The court said the defendants did not contest the plaintiff’s case through evidence or cross examination. As per the court, it saw no reason to reject the plaintiff’s evidence on payment.
The court said it also saw no reason to reject the plaintiff’s case that the Copyright Assignment Agreement was valid, subsisting, and binding upon Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. According to the court, the defendants’ conduct showed no real attempt to defend the suit.
On breach and infringement, the court observed that the plaintiff proved breaches of the Copyright Assignment Agreement through the evidence of its witness, including breaches of identified clauses. The court said Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not deny these breaches and did not test the evidence through cross examination. The court stated that the agreement made time of the essence, and the film was not delivered within the stipulated period, and the producer did not obtain any written extension from the plaintiff.
The court observed that despite the subsistence of the Copyright Assignment Agreement, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded to assign music rights and distribution rights in Will You Marry Me to other defendants and facilitated further subsequent agreements. In the eyes of the court, this conduct violated the exclusivity clauses and negative covenants contained in the Copyright Assignment Agreement.
The court stated that the plaintiff’s legal notices calling upon Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to remedy breaches and refund monies remained unanswered, and this evidence also went unchallenged. The court held that since the Copyright Assignment Agreement was valid and subsisting, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no authority in law to create any third party rights. As per the court, all subsequent agreements entered into by them or by persons claiming through them were void and unenforceable as against the plaintiff.
On the pleas of independent acquisition by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, the court observed that they led no evidence and chose not to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness on material assertions regarding the plaintiff’s prior assignment and subsisting rights. The court applied adverse inference and held that the defendants failed to discharge the burden cast upon them to establish lawful acquisition of rights in Will You Marry Me.
On relief, the court stated that since the plaintiff was the lawful assignee and the defendants acted in breach of contract and infringement of the plaintiff’s rights, the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunctive relief. The court also considered costs under the Commercial Courts Act framework and awarded compensatory costs in view of the defendants’ conduct.
Findings
1. The court held that the Copyright Assignment Agreement dated 17 May 2010 was valid, subsisting, and binding, and that the plaintiff held the assigned rights relating to Will You Marry Me.
2. The court held that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 breached the Copyright Assignment Agreement and infringed the plaintiff’s rights by assigning music rights and distribution rights to third parties despite the subsisting assignment.
3. The court held that subsequent agreements creating third party rights were void and unenforceable as against the plaintiff.
4. The court decreed the suit in terms of specified prayer clauses pressed and granted permanent injunctive relief.
5. The court directed Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly pay costs of Rs. 10,00,000 to the plaintiff within the time granted, with interest if unpaid within that period.
Case Citation
Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd., 2026 BHC OS 373 (Bom. HC Jan. 5, 2026).
Indian Kanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157465899/ (visited on 20 February 2026)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.