Judgment :- 1. The applicant herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. The suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright, viz., 8 mm, 16 mm, 35 mm, and TV rights for the entire World in the picture “Oru Inya Udayam” Tamil colour and Video and Television rights for the entire India in the picture “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil Colour, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs limited copyright, etc. The suit has been filed under S. 55 of the Copyright Act for the relief of delcaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the above copyright. 2. The plaintiffs case is that by agreeement dated 6.9.1986 between the producer Pondu Cine Arts and himself, he has been assigned the lease rights of exploitation, exhibition and distribution of the picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam’ in the dimensions asked for in the suit. The plaintiff places reliance on Cl. (1) and Cl. (5) of the agreement which in are as follows: “C1.-5: The lessees are hereby irrevocably authorised by the Lessors to sell, dispose, assign, lease the video cassettes/tapes/discs produced by the lessesses to any other party, person or any of them or any part thereof at the sole discretion of the Lessees. Clause-1: The Lessors hereby grant and confer the Lease rights of exploitation, exhibition and distribution of the said picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam” in 35 mm, 16 mm, 8 mm, and in any other dimensions of commercial, non commercial and the T.V. rights for the entire overseas territories and video rights for the entire World including Indian Union Territories for perpetual period.” In regard to the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ four agreements are relied on by the plaintiff. The first agreement is dated 4.4.88 between Thirupathysamy pictures (Producers of Nooravathu Naal) and one V.C. Palanisamy, whereby the said Palanisamy is assigned copyright in 9 pictures. Cl. The first agreement is dated 4.4.88 between Thirupathysamy pictures (Producers of Nooravathu Naal) and one V.C. Palanisamy, whereby the said Palanisamy is assigned copyright in 9 pictures. Cl. 2 of the said agreement reads as follows: “The Lessees shall be entitled the Video Copyrights of the said pictures, taping, mastering Video rights and Distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Video Cassettes/tapes/discs throughout Indian territories either by themselves or through their assignees and shall enjoy the benefits derived out of the same without any claim or interruption from the lessor or anyone claiming through them.” By agreement dated 6.4.88, the said Palanisamy assigns to Subala Video the Video Copyrights of the picture including “Nooravathu Naal”. C1. 2 of the said agreement details the rights that are granted and Cl. 2 reads as follows: “The Lessees shall be entitled to the Video Copyrights of the said pictures, taping, mastering Video rights and also distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Video Cassettee/Tapes/discs throughout Indian territories either by themselves or through their assignees and shall enjoy the benefits derived out of the same without any claim or interruption from the Lessor or anyone claiming through him.” Cl. 5 and 7 are also relied on which are re-produced hereunder: “Clause-5: The Lessor hereby agrees and confirms that prior to the execution of this Agreement he has not transferred, assigned or entered into any agreement with any party in India in respect of the assignment of the Video rights covered under this agreement. Clause-7: The Lessor hereby assures and confirms that he is entitled to enter into this agreement with the Lessees and that there is no hypothecation or charge over the video rights of the aforesaid Nine pictures covered under this agreement.” On 20-5-1991, Subala Video assigns to Swastik Video Vision, the lease of video rights in any part of India, but, does not include the telecasting of the movie in Television in and outside India any other mechanism. The expression video rights has also been defined to mean the rights to reproduce the films on Video cassette and to distribute them for private exhibition in India. Cl-8 states that the lessees shall be entitled to the video rights of the said films specified in Schedule A thereto and to reproduce the said films on video cassettes and to distribute the same for private exhibition in all territories in India. 3. Cl-8 states that the lessees shall be entitled to the video rights of the said films specified in Schedule A thereto and to reproduce the said films on video cassettes and to distribute the same for private exhibition in all territories in India. 3. By the agreement dated 19.8.1992 Swastik Video Vision assigned the video rights to the plaintiff and the rights that are assigned are detailed as Indian Video Lease Rights under Cl. 1. Clause-1 of the said agreement reads thus: “The Lessors hereby agree and grant on Lease the Indian Video Lease Rights, and the rights for performing the exhibition of the picture in any mode of visual or accoustic presentation for commercial and non-commercial exploitation, exhibition, distribution, preparing, manufacturing Master U. matic Video cassettes, copies thereto, lending the cassettes, for a perpetual period of the picture mentioned below referred to as the leased period in consideration of a total royalty amount as mentioned below against each firm for the entire India mentioned hereunder herein after referred to as the leased territory.” The Clauses extracted above were relied upon by Mr. R. Krishnaswami, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff at the time of hearing and on the basis of the abovesaid agreements, the plaintiff/applicant seeks relief of declaration and injunction. 4. Per contra, the defendant/respondent claims that they are broadcasting the picture in Satellite TV from Manila, Philippines and that they have acquired the rights to telecast the picture through Satellite from the producer of the picture in respect of the picture Nooravathu Naal. As regards the picture Oru Iniya Uhyayam, the case of the defendant is that they have acquired the rights from the copyright and the World Negative Rights Holder. Their defence is that Satellite Rights are entirely different from TV rights or Video rights and that the plaintiffs not having acquired any rights for Satellite broadcasts, are not entitled to see k an order of injunction against the defendant. As stated above, the defendant claims the right for the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ under an agreement dated 28.12.1993 between the producer and Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd., the defendant being its unit. The said agreement defines various expressions used in the said agreement and in Cls. 2 and 3 the rights that are assigned are mentioned. Cl. As stated above, the defendant claims the right for the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ under an agreement dated 28.12.1993 between the producer and Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd., the defendant being its unit. The said agreement defines various expressions used in the said agreement and in Cls. 2 and 3 the rights that are assigned are mentioned. Cl. 2 and 3 reads as follows: “Clause-2: The Assignment of copyright for the said films for Satellite Television Broadcasts means the absolute assignment to the assignees or their authorised persons, of the copyright for broadcasting the said film through satellite, cable, wire wireless or through any other system or any other forms, means and modes other than through Doordarshans terrestrial primary channel, without restriction of geographical area. Clause-3: The Assignors further declare that they have not created any charge, lien, mortgage or any other encumbrance on the said Film/s/Video Copyrights/in respect of the said films in favour of any artists, singers, musicians, writers, lyric writers or other persons or parties and that nothing in the said films infringes the copyright or any other rights of any third party. The Assignors further declare and convenant with the Assignesthat there are no claims, actions, proceedings etc. pending proceed ings or any threatened proceedings affecting the Assignors, said copyrights therein or the titled thereof or otherwise. In the event of any such claims/lien etc. The Assignors shall fully idemnify the Assignees against any such eventuality.” It is stated therein that the rights that are assigned are Satellite broadcasting and copy right for broadcasting through satellite, cable, wire, wireless through any other system or form, means and modes other than through Doordarshans terrestrial primary channel, without restriction of geographical area. Cl.-3 clarifies that no charge etc., have been created in respect of Video Copyright that is arising under this agreement. Further Cls. 6 and 7 of the agreement reads as follows: “Clause-6: The Assignors shall give to the Assignees as and when required one positive Negative print of the said films in very good condition. The abovesaid Positive/Negative print will be returned immediately after transferring to a U-matic Tape. Clause-7. Further Cls. 6 and 7 of the agreement reads as follows: “Clause-6: The Assignors shall give to the Assignees as and when required one positive Negative print of the said films in very good condition. The abovesaid Positive/Negative print will be returned immediately after transferring to a U-matic Tape. Clause-7. The Assignees shall have full, complete and unrestricted right to alter, delete, or cut any portion or add any portion of other film/s or documentaries, advertisements or sound, in the said films either before or after or intervening including the right to make the Videograms, Discs, cassettes, Tapes in respect of songs, dialogues scenes, extracts and/or combinations thereof the said films. In short the Assignees shall have unrestrcited rights to use the said films or videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes for any purpose in any manner whatsover for Satellite TV Broadcast purpose specified in Cl. No. 2” Thus, clause-6 and 7 of the said agreement grants the defendant rights to make Discs, Cassettes, Tapes etc, for satellite braodcasting purpose. In regard to the picture ‘Oru Iniya Udhayam’, the defendant claims right through one Poornima Films, who claims themselves to be the World negative right holder of the said picture ‘Oru Iniya Udhyam’ by the agreement dated 3.4.1993 assigning the entire copyright and World Negative Rights to one O.K. Films and the said O.K. Films by an agreement dated 3.1.1994 as signs the copy right of the said films for Satellite Television Broadcasting to the defendant. 5. I have heard Mr. Krishnaswami, learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs and Mr. N.S. Varadhachari, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the expression Video Copyright in the agreements relied on by him would mean and include all the rights by exploitation through the use of Video Cassette and tape in TV Screen. Mr. Krishnaswami placed strong reliance on the definition of the term copyright occuring in S. 2(dd), 2(f) and 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, the relevant sections are reproduced hereunder: “Sec. 2(dd): “broadcast” means communication to the public- (i) by any means of wireless diffusion, whether in any one or more of the forms of signs, sounds or visual images; or (ii) by wire, and includes a re-broadcast. Sec. 2(f): “Cinematograph film” includes the sound track, if any, any ‘cinematograph’ shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography. Sec. 2(f): “Cinematograph film” includes the sound track, if any, any ‘cinematograph’ shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography. Sec. 2(ff): “Communication to the public” means communication to the public in whatever manner, including communication through satellite.” Under Sec. 2(ff), communication to public includes communication through Satellite, according to Mr. R. Krishnaswami. In Clause 2(dd) broadcast is defined as communication to public through wireless diffusion. signs or visual image. Thus, according to the definition, it as a whole given rise to only interpretation Video Film/Video copyright as one by which communication to public through sound and visual images including communication through satellite. Reference was also made to Sec. 14 (1) (VI) and S. 14(1)(C) which are as follows: “Sec. 14(1): For the purposes of this Act, “Copyright” means the exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject to the provisions of, this Act- (a)(i).(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)..(vi) to communicate the work by radio-diffusion or to communicate to the public by a loudspeaker or any other similar instrument the radio-diffusion of the work. (b) (c) in the case of a cinematograph film, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following Acts, namely- (i) (ii) (iii).. (iv) to communicate the film by radio diffusion.” 6. According to Mr. N.S. Varadachari, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, the video copyright through satellite communication was not under contemplation of the parties either on 6.9.86 or on 4.4.1988. This argument of Mr. N.S. Varadachari was attacked by Mr. R. Krishnaswami and according to him, whether a video copyright through Satellite communication was not under contemplation of parties is of no consequence while interpreting the term Cinematograph occuring under Copyright Act. Mr. R. Krishnaswami cited a decision of this Court (by Bakthavatsalam, J.,) in W.P. No. 19458/92 dated 5.1.1993 wherein it is held as follows: “That apart, the expression ‘cinema’ being a legislative head of power should receive the interpretation of greatest amplitude and cannot be restricted to a particular apparatus. Mr. R. Krishnaswami cited a decision of this Court (by Bakthavatsalam, J.,) in W.P. No. 19458/92 dated 5.1.1993 wherein it is held as follows: “That apart, the expression ‘cinema’ being a legislative head of power should receive the interpretation of greatest amplitude and cannot be restricted to a particular apparatus. In my view, in a fast developing society, it would not be correct to confine the intention of Legislative to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time of enactment, that in a scientific age, the Legislature must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning of the word which it may attract with the advance of science and technology, and that there is no reason as to why the word ‘apparatus’ used in the definition of ‘cinematograph’ be given restricted meaning so as to mean only a sheet or ribbon of celluloid or the like prepared with the coating for ordinary photographs. So in my view the word “cinematogrpah” used in S. 2(1) of the Act 7 of 1984 (as amended by Act 44 of 1991) should take in satellite transmission through cable television.” Learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the following judgments reported in 1. Entertaining Enterprises v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1984 Writ. L.R. 57); 2. N. Venkatesan v. The Deputy General Manager, Telecommunication, Erode (1991-1 L.W. 465); 3. Laxmi Video Theatres v. State of Haryana (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2328), wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “We are in agreement with this view. The definition of the expression ‘cinematograph’ containedin S. 2(c) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and S. 2(a) of the Act, is an inclusive definition which included any apparatus for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. The said definition cannot be confined in its application to an appartus for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures which was known on the date of the enactment of the said provision. It must be given a meaning wh ich takes into account the subsequent scientific developments in the field in accordance with principle of statutory construction laid down in The Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra (1962) 3 SCR 146 : ( AIR 1962 SC 159 ). In that case it has been held”: “.. It must be given a meaning wh ich takes into account the subsequent scientific developments in the field in accordance with principle of statutory construction laid down in The Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra (1962) 3 SCR 146 : ( AIR 1962 SC 159 ). In that case it has been held”: “.. In a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time with the revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human acitivty. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretations should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them”, (pp. 156-157) (of SCR): (at p. 163 of AIR). The VCR/VCP were developed in 1970s and acheive the same purpose as the traditional media for exhibition of moving pictures there is nothing in the Act which excludes the applicability of the Act to VCR/VCP.” In another judgment reported in Raja Video Parlour v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1993 SC 2330 ), the Apex Court has held as follows: “The High Court has construed the worlds ‘television screen’ in the Rules to mean the screen of a television set and on that basis, the High Court has held that television screen only mean the in built television screen and does not include a separate screen. We do not find any warrant for reading the word “set” after ‘television’ in the words ‘television screen’ in the Rules. The words ‘television screen’ in the Rules are wide enough to cover a screen of the TV projector once the same is held to be a television receiver. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Rules apply only to exhibition of cinematograph films through a VCP on the screen of a television set and they do not apply to such exhibition through a TV projector on a separate large screen. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Rules apply only to exhibition of cinematograph films through a VCP on the screen of a television set and they do not apply to such exhibition through a TV projector on a separate large screen. We are of the opinion that the Rules are applicable to exhibition of films on a seperate screen through video cassatte players and television projectors.” Mr. R. Krishnaswami, learned counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the above judgment and submits that in view of the expanded meaning given to the term ‘video rights’, the term of video rights would mean and include all rights of exploitation through the medium of video cassettes. In other words, video rights would mean exploitation, exhibition distribution of visual images and sound tracks through video cassettes, tapes, discs by whatever apparatus or meduim it is broadcasted. Therefore, he contended that since the rights granted to plaintiff is an assignment of sale, exhibition and exploitation of video film, any encroachment to that right would amount to infringment of copyright, even though the defendant may contend that it is only a satellite broadcast which is an independent right, such as right is exploited through medium of video film which itself is a cinematograph and which includes communication to public through sounds or visual images, amounts to infringment of plaintiffs copyright. In the said circumstances, Mr. R. Krishnaswami would contend that the defendant cannot contend that the satellite rights are independent rights and no part of the rights in video films. In regard to the picture “oru Iniya Udhayam’ the defendant contended that he is the holder of negative rights and will have all the rights and his rights are superior to the limited rights granted to a person. According to Mr. R. Krishnaswami, the date of the agreement under which Poornima Films claims rights for ‘Oru Iniya Udhayam is not known and that the agreement that is relied on by the defendant is dated 3.4.1993, which is 7 years after the rights are assigned to plaintiff by producer. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, any negative rights assigned after 6.9.1986 will not bind the plaintiff. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, any negative rights assigned after 6.9.1986 will not bind the plaintiff. Since the contentions of the defendant have no legal basis, learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant would be entitled to an order of confirmation of the injunction in their favour. 7. Mr. N.S. Varadachari, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in support of his contentions raised the following points: a) there is no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to telecast the picture through satellite. b). the plaintiffs have not stated that their rights have been affected in any manner c). Satellite Television was not contemplated in the year 1986 when the plaintiffs stated to have received the rights d) the plaintiffs has no iota of right to exhibit the picture in Television and consequently they cannot seek to put forward any rights for Satellite broadcast, e). non-joinder of the owner of the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ copyright, and f). satellite television broadcast right is an independent right for which the plaintiffs cannot claim any copyright. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Admittedly, there is no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to telecast the picture through satellite. The plaint has been filed only for the following relief: “a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copy right viz., 8 mm, 16 mm, 35 mm, and TV rights for the entire world in the picture ‘Oru iniya Udayam’ Tamil colour and video and Television Rights for the entire India in the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ Tamil Colour. b). For a Permanent injunction restraining the defendant their men, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from infringing the plaintiffs limited copy right in 8 mm, 16 mm, 35 mm, TV rights in Overseas Territories, Video and Satellite Television Right in the entire world in the pictures ‘Oru Iniya Udhayam’ and Nooravathu Naal Tamil colour by telecasting the same. c). For costs of the suit.” This apart, none of the agreements relied on by the plaintiff contain any specific assignment of the said rights. In the case of ‘Oru Iniya Udhayam, the plaintiffs as per the agreement relied on by them dated 6.9.1986, are only having TV rights for overseas territories and Video Rights. c). For costs of the suit.” This apart, none of the agreements relied on by the plaintiff contain any specific assignment of the said rights. In the case of ‘Oru Iniya Udhayam, the plaintiffs as per the agreement relied on by them dated 6.9.1986, are only having TV rights for overseas territories and Video Rights. Video Rigths certainly does not confer any rights on the plaintiffs through Satellite. The rights claimed by the plaintiffs, in my view are only be TV rights through overseas territories, which means home TV or a right t o deal with various TV stations outside the country. As regards the picture,‘Oru Iniya Udhayam’ the plaintiffs case is that they have acquired TV rights for overseas territories and video rights for the world in Sep. 1986 itself. Whereas the case of the defendant is that they acquired it from negative right holder O.K. Films. It is seen from the agreement that the producer sold the entire copy right and world negative rights to Poornima Films and the said Poornima Films in turn sold the rights to O.K. Films and O.K. Films sold the satellite broadcasting rights to the defendant as owners of copy right and world negative right holders. It is also seen that Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., the Laboratories, have agreed to retain the negatives on behalf of O.K. Films. My attention was drawn to the letter dated 8.6.1993 by Vijaya Production Pvt. Ltd., to O.K. Films which specifically states that the Laboratory has received irrevocable instructions that the entire world negative rights have been given to O.K. Films in respect of the picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam” in all dimensions including the World Television, World Video exploitation and all other advanced future scientific technology rights, for a period of 99 years from 8.5.93. It is useful to extract para-1 of the said letter which reads as follows: “As per the irrevocable instructions of Poornima Films, Madras vide their letter dated 8.5.93 which was received by us on 5.6.93 you too have ratified), we hereby confirm that they have sold the entire World Negative rights of the above picture in 35 mm and in all other dimensions including World Television, World Video exploitation and all other advanced future scientific technology rights to you for a period of 99 (ninty-nine) years from 8.5.93. They have also authorised us to transfer and deliver and keep the negatives (both picture and sound) including light cards of the above said picture in your name and to act as per your instructions with regard to the above said film in future.” It is also seen that O.K. Films have also given a letter to Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., dated 3.1.1994 requesting them to deliver the picture and sound negatives of “Oru Iniya Udhayam” to Sumangali Publications Pvt., Ltd. for transferring it to ‘U’ matic tapes whenever they require. Thus it is clear that the respondent has acquired the rights from the World Negative Right Holders, consequently, the defendant alone has got the Satellite Television Broadcasting rights. 9. Mr. R. Krishnaswami put forward a contention that they acquired the TV rights for Overseas Territories and Video rights even in 1986 and, therefore, any transfer of negative rights can only be subject to earlier agreement. I am unable to countenance the said argument. The said argument cannot be accepted because only the TV rights for overseas territories and Video rights are given to the plaintiffs. It is not stated that those rights have been affected in any manner. The plaintiffs themselves in their agreement have treated TV rights for Overseas territories/Video rights as separate rights. 10. According to Mr. Varadachari, learned counsel for the respondents in as much as the Satellite Television was not contemplated in the year 1986 when the plaintiffs stated to have received the rights, the plaintiffs cannot now seek to improve his argument by saying that he is entitled to Satellite right. As rightly pointed out by Mr. N.S. Varadachari, the Satellite right was not contemplated in the year 1986. Therefore, I am of the view that what was not contemplated at the time of agreement cannot be claimed by the applicants now. This is evident from the following rulings reported in 1) Hosp. for Sick Children v. Walt Disney (1966) 2 All E.R. 321) and 2) Rattan Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) I All E.R. 1005). It will be fruitful to note that the agreement under which the applicants seek to put forward rights is an agreement dated 19.8.1992 from Swastik Video Vision as regards the picture Nooravathu Naal. The said Swastik Video Vision themselves have acquired the rights from Subala Video represented by its proprietor A.M. Subbiah. It will be fruitful to note that the agreement under which the applicants seek to put forward rights is an agreement dated 19.8.1992 from Swastik Video Vision as regards the picture Nooravathu Naal. The said Swastik Video Vision themselves have acquired the rights from Subala Video represented by its proprietor A.M. Subbiah. In the agreement dated 20.5.1991, under which Swastik Video Vision acquired the rights, it is specifically mentioned as “this does not include telecasting of the movie in Television in and outside India and any other mechanism. Under Cl. (1b) of the said agreement it is clearly mentioned that the expression video right shall mean the right to produce the film on video cassettes and to distribute them for private exhibition in India. Again in Cl. 8 of the said agreement, it is clearly stated that the lessees shall be entitled to Video rights of the film specified in schedule-A and to reproduce the film on Video Cassattes and to distribute the same for Private exhibition in all territories in India. When Swastik Video Vision themselves have acquired only Video rights and not the television rights and the agreement specifically provide for reproduction of cassettes for private exhibition, the same will clearly show that Swastik Video Vision cannot confer any right on the plaintiff nor the TV rights. Thus, in my opinion, the plaintiffs have no iota of rights to exhibit the picture in Television and consequently they cannot seek to put forward any rights for Satellite broadcast as regards the picture Nooravathu Naal. On the other hand, the defendant/respondent has acquired satellite rights separately under agreement dated 28.12.1993 directly from the producers the Satellite Television Broadcasting rights. This is made clear under Cls. 6 and 8 of the agreement dated 23.12.1993. 11. Mr. N.S. Varadachari next contended that the owner of all the rights viz., the producer has not been made as a party to the suit and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the owner of the copy right. In this regard, I am of the view that the intention of the parties relating to an agreement under which the owner of the copy right assigns any copy right in respect of the picture can only be gathered by the necessary parties bring brought before the court. Admittedly, the person from whom, the applicant/plaintiff claims the rights are not made parties. Admittedly, the person from whom, the applicant/plaintiff claims the rights are not made parties. S. 61 of the Copyright Act also provides that the owners must be made parties. In this case the defendant disputes the plaintiffs right. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to establish their right and for the purpose of finding out what was the intention of the party who gave the rights, the original owner of the copyright of the picture is a necessary party. 12. Further, under S. 18(2) of the Copyright Act, where the assignee of the copy right becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright, the assignee as respects the rights so assigned and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned shall be treated for the purpose of this Act as the owner of the copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly. S. 19(2) provides the assignment copyright in any work shall among other things indicate clearly the rights proposed to be assigned and the size of the work. Thus, it will be clear that the plaintiff/applicant cannot claim anything more than the rights said to have been assigned to them under the agreements relied upon by them. As stated supra, there is no mention of the word Satellite in any of the agreements put forward by the plaintiffs. As already adverted to, the copy right for broadcasting or telecasting the Film through Satellite, cable, wire, wireless or through any other system or any other form, means and modes other than through Doordarshan terrestrial Primary Channel without restriction of geographical area is a separate right. Satellite right is a new, seperate and distinct specie of right hitherto not visualised and this cannot be said to be included under the agreements relied upon by the plaintiffs in any event. Such a right should be specifically comtemplated under the agreement. In fact, cassettes are used for home TV, whereas ‘U’ matic tapes are used for Satellite Transmission. 13. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the view that the satellite television broadcasting right is an independent right for which the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright. In fact, cassettes are used for home TV, whereas ‘U’ matic tapes are used for Satellite Transmission. 13. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the view that the satellite television broadcasting right is an independent right for which the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant, the plaintiffs having filed a suit for declaration and injunction, have not included the world satellite while praying for declaration, but has included the word satellite in the prayer for injunction (para -8(b). It will also be significant to note that nowhere in the plaint the word ‘Satellite’ has been used except in para-8(b) in the prayer for injunction. This itself shows that the right now claimed for satellite lacks bonafide on the part of the applicants. As could be seen from the clauses 6 and 8 of the agreements filed by the defendant they expressly provides that the rights conferred on the assignee/defendant are the sole and exclusive rights for satellite TV broadcast for 25 years. As per the Copyright Act, Satellite rights, T.V. rights and Video right are distinct and cannot be interpreted by the copyright holder to suit their ends. It is pertinent to note that satellite right involves the preparation of U-matic tapes and the sole and exclusive right for Satellite TV broadcast is entirely different from TV rights for overseas territories. The pictures received by the public were all Satellite transmissions. This apart, satellite television differs from ordinary Terrestrial Television (T.V.). Satellite T.V. can reach a very much larger audiance than any ordinary territorial television station. Consequently, the satellite TV crosses the borders of many countries. The word ‘satellite’ refers to the satellite transformer situated 3,47,000 kilo metres above the equator belonging to RMISAT a U.S. company which owns and operates the satellite through which SUN TV transmits the signal. The Sun TV programme material sent to Manila from where it is uplinked to the Satellite (signal sent to satellite for broadcasting). Satellite television refers to the programme material being transmitted via the above mentioned satellite or frequency 3.8. GHZ 2GHZ over the service area which is predominently over India. The said satellite channel can be received using a satellite receiving antenna called Dish Antenna of 8 to 12 ft. in diameter using electronic equipment of “c” band-width. Satellite television refers to the programme material being transmitted via the above mentioned satellite or frequency 3.8. GHZ 2GHZ over the service area which is predominently over India. The said satellite channel can be received using a satellite receiving antenna called Dish Antenna of 8 to 12 ft. in diameter using electronic equipment of “c” band-width. This same satellite signal is then transmitted to several TV sets Via co-axial cable system in the service area (i.e.) throughout India. Further, for satellite televisions seperate tape called U-matric tape is used. The terrestrial television channel (ordinary TV) is the regular channel like Doordarshan where in the signals are sent from ground, using a tower and any television set can receive this signal. 14. This apart, we can also see the difference between the satellite and terrestrial TV. Satellite TV singals cannot be received by normal TV sets unless proper electronic equipment and dis antenna is used to receive the signal sent which feeds to the TV sets via cable. A regular TV set without cable connection can not get the programme. 15. Terrestrial TV is totally different from satellite TV because anybody with a TV set can receive and watch terrestrial TV programmes without the need of cable and specialised equipment and huge dish antenna. Let me now discuss the decisions cited by Mr. R. Krishnaswami AIR 1993 S.C. 2328 and 2330. They are in my opinion, are cases arising under the Cinematograph Act and relates to exhibition of picture in Video parlour wherelicence is necessary. The Supreme Court while dealing with the necessity for obtaining licence, has observed that Cinematograph include Video Cassettes, recorder and video cassette player and that the rules applicable to exhibition of films on a seperate screen through video cassette players and television projectors and that the words Television screen in the rules is wide enough to cover the screen of the TV projector as the same is a television receiver. The above two decisions, in my opinion, will not be of any assistance to the applicants to the case arising under Copyright Act and this apart they are not applicable to the facts of the present case also. As seen above, satellite rights are indepedent rights, because they are having separate device and the picture negatives are furnished for taking U-matic tapes. As seen above, satellite rights are indepedent rights, because they are having separate device and the picture negatives are furnished for taking U-matic tapes. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is any infringement as complained of by the plaintiff/applicant. Further, the questions whether TV rights for overseas territories will include Satellite are all matters which may have to be gone into only in the suit. In any event, the intention of the parties to the agreement can be called out and considered only after a full-fledged trial. Thus, looked at from any angle, satellite TV broadcasting rights are independent rights and the same have to be assigned specifically and so far as such rights have not been assigned in favour of the applicant/plaintiff specifically, the plaintiffs cannot claim any copy right in the same or seek any order of injunction on the ground of alleged infringment by the defendant. The plaintiff/applicants therefore, in my opinion have no prima facie case. The balance of convenience is only in favour of the respondents since the respondent has acquired the rights and the rights acquired are specifically mentioned in the agreement relating to both the pictures. I have come to the above conclusion on a careful prima facie consideration of the various agreements relied on by both the parties. It is seen from those agreements and as mentioned above, the plaintiff has not acquired the satellite right for the pictures in question. Since the said right has not been assigned specifically to the applicant/plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot claim an order for injunction against the respondent/defendant. Hence, for all the reasons stated supra, O.A. No. 294 of 1994 is dismissed and A. No. 2326 of 1994 is allowed and the interim injunction already granted in O.A. No. 294 of 1994 is hereby vacated.