Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 946 (MAD)

Bharani R. Paluval v. Srikanth Nagothi

2020-07-01

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule of the Original Side rules of Madras High Court read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, servants or any other persons acting under them or authorised by them from in any manner using the title “Banumathi Ramakrishna” for release of the forthcoming web film or in any of the forthcoming films in any manner amounting to infiltration of the Plaintiff’s mother’s name viz., “Bhanumathi Ramakrishna” in violation of her Personality rights; to direct the Defendants to remove all references/press releases/videos/posters/advertisements/content/publicity materials containing the name “Bhanumathi Ramakrishna” in the websites, television channels, radio channels, newspapers and/or other modes of advertisement in any other modes of electronic and/or print media; directing the defendants to compensate the plaintiff as compensatory and punitive damages a sum of Rs.1,00,00,001.00 for unauthorised use of the Plaintiff mother’s name “Bhanumathi Ramakrishna” in advertisements and trailers thereby causing physical and mental paid and to pay costs of the proceedings.) 1. The Civil Suit has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, servants or any other persons acting under them or authorised by them from in any manner using the title “Banumathi Ramakrishna” for release of the forthcoming web film or in any of the forthcoming films in any manner amounting to infiltration of the Plaintiff’s mother’s name viz., “Bhanumathi Ramakrishna” in violation of her Personality rights; to direct the Defendants to remove all references/press releases/videos/posters/advertisements/content/publicity materials containing the name “Bhanumathi Ramakrishna” in the websites, television channels, radio channels, newspapers and/or other modes of advertisement in any other modes of electronic and/or print media; directing the defendants to compensate the plaintiff as compensatory and punitive damages a sum of Rs.1,00,00,001.00 for unauthorised use of the Plaintiff mother’s name “Bhanumathi Ramakrishna” in advertisements and trailers thereby causing physical and mental paid and to pay costs of the proceedings. 2. Heard Mr.V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing the Plaintiff and Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendants through video conferencing elaborately. 3. After hearing some time, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that it is not the question of compensation, but the question of right of celebrity. Admittedly the parents of the Plaintiff are celebrities and illustrative persons which has not been disputed by the Defendants in the communications between them. 3. After hearing some time, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that it is not the question of compensation, but the question of right of celebrity. Admittedly the parents of the Plaintiff are celebrities and illustrative persons which has not been disputed by the Defendants in the communications between them. Such being the position, their right cannot be interfered by the Defendants by naming their film which is scheduled to be released on 03.07.2020. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the film is not a biopic of Bhanumathi and Ramakrishnan, it is no way connected to them. 5. During the argument the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that if the name of the film is changed the entire suit gets over. There is no question of claiming any money. Money is not an issue in this matter. 6. After some deliberations, after consulting their clients, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff has fairly submitted that if the word ‘&’is inserted between Bhanumathi and Ramakrishna, besides disclaimer indicating before the film that the story is not the story of the parents of the Plaintiff and it will not damage the reputation of the Plaintiff, then Plaintiff will have no issue. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Defendants, after instructions from their clients submitted that their clients are willing to insert ampersand (&) in between Bhanumathi and Ramakrishnan. He also submitted that the disclaimer clause also to be displayed before the film, for which the Plaintiff has no objection. 8. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that as the parties are agreed to tweak the name of the film by inserting ampersand in between Bhanumathi and Ramakrishnan and also display the disclaimer indicating that this film is not the biopic of late Bhanumathi Ramakrishna, the question of affecting the personality right of the parents of the Plaintiff will not arise. 9. Hence, the Defendants are directed to insert ampersand (&) in the same size font besides they also to be displayed the Disclaimer clause before the film indicating that the story is not the biopic of the well known legendary Actress Dr.Bhanumathi Ramakrishna, mother of the Plaintiff. 10. 9. Hence, the Defendants are directed to insert ampersand (&) in the same size font besides they also to be displayed the Disclaimer clause before the film indicating that the story is not the biopic of the well known legendary Actress Dr.Bhanumathi Ramakrishna, mother of the Plaintiff. 10. In view of such understanding and agreement reached between the parties the suit itself disposed of, since nothing survives in the matter after the consensus arrived between the parties to change the name of the film and display the disclaimer indicating that the story do not pertain to the parents of the Plaintiff. Since the matter is settled on the basis of the understanding reached between the parties and the suit is not disposed on adjudication, the Registry is directed to refund the court fee paid by the Plaintiff as per law. 11. In the result, the Civil Suit is disposed of. No costs. Since the suit is not disposed on adjudication, the Register is directed to refund the court fee paid by the Plaintiff as per law. Connected Original Application is closed.