TEAM-K

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

___________________________________________________________________________

C.A. No.: ______/2022

Suit filed under Art, 226

Of the Constitution of India, 1950.

___________________________________________________________________________

MADANMOHAN ASTHANA …APPELLANT 1

V-SERIES Pvt. Ltd. ...APPELLANT 2
ZENDER ...APPELLANT 3

V.

SHEHNAAZ HOSSAIN…RESPONDENT

___________________________________________________________________________

On Submission to the Hon’ble Chief Justice & Other

Companion Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of India.
__________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

 Page | 1

SCHOOL OF LAW, THE NORTHCAP UNIVERSITY INTRA-BATCH MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. TOPICS P. NO.

1. THE LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 2

2. THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3

3. THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

5. THE ISSUES RAISED 10

6. THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

7. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

8. THE PRAYER 19

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 2

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPLANATION
& And
AIR All India Reports
Co. Company/Corporation
Del Delhi
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd Limited
no. Number
p. Page
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
S. Section

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

S. No. CASES PAGE No.

1. Bakshi Lochan Singh v. Jatliedar Santokh Singh, AIR 1971 6.

Delhi 277
2. R. Raja Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) SCC (6) 632 12

3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161 12

4. Zacchini v/s. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co.- 433 U.S. 562 12

97 S. Ct. 2849 (1977)
5. Martin Luther King Jr., Center for Social Change v. American 14
Heritage Products- 1982 Ga.8 Media L. Rep 2377

6. ICC Development (International Ltd.) v Arvee Enterprises, 14

2003 (26) PTC 245

7. Monde Petroleum SA vs. Western Zagros Limited (2016) 14

EWHC 1472

8. Air India Ltd. Vs GATI Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10220 14

9. Mehboob-ur-Rehman v. Ahsanul Ghan, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 16

203

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 950

2. The Specific Relief Act, 1963
3. The Copyright Act, 1957
4. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908
5. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 4

WEB SOURCES
1. www.ssconline.com
2. www.indiankanoon.com
3. www.manupatra.com

INTERNET ARTICLES
1. STA Law Firm,he Legality Of Termination For Convenience Clauses
https://www.mondaq.com/contracts-and-commercial-law/826900/the-legality-of-termination-for-
convenience-clauses

2. By Devika Sharma, Specific Performance — Principles Revisited

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/06/18/specific-performance-principles-revisited/

3. By Garima Gunjan, Importance of termination clause in production agreement

https://blog.ipleaders.in/importance-of-termination-clause-in-production-agreement/

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants have approached this Hon’ble High Court of India through suit filed under Art
226 of The Constitution of India, 1950.

ART 226 READS AS UNDER:

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in
any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ),
without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for
such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for
the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour
such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the
application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date
on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High
Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall,

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 6

on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power
conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.

Before the High Court of Delhi

The Delhi high court exercises its jurisdiction conferred on it by the virtue of S.5 of THE DELHI
HIGH COURT ACT, AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT AMENDMENT ACT 2015 wherein
for the purposes of section 92 of CPC the court of the high court will be the principle civil court
of original jurisdiction in suits the value of which exceeds 2 crores.1

Before the Patiala House Court

The Patiala House Court exercises its jurisdiction conferred on it by the virtue of S. 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code.

1
Bakshi Lochan Singh v. Jatliedar Santokh Singh, AIR 1971 Delhi 277

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

DETAILS OF PARTIES:

1. Madan Mohan Asthana: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant no. 1.’ He was the father of
Siddharth Asthana. He had been honoured with ‘Padamshri’ award for his contribution to
classical music.
2. V-Series Pvt. Ltd: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant no. 2.’ It is a company which owned
a streaming platform named as We-Tube.
3. Zender: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant no. 3.’ It is a social networking application.
4. Shehnaaz Hossain: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent’. She was Siddharth’s girlfriend
and also a contestant of reality show “Big Brother”.
5. Siddharth Asthana: He was a young influencer and the newest sensation on the social
networking application i.e. Zender. Also, he was the winner of the famous reality show ‘Big
Brother’ in the year 2020.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Siddharth Asthana, a young influencer, was the newest sensation on the social
networking application, Appellant 3. He was known for his original compositions and
peculiar singing ability. He had released his first full-fledged debut album single titled as
‘Shona Shona’ which was a huge hit everywhere, even though it was exclusively released
on We-Tube in the year 2018, and had garnered more than 10 million views in a short
span of time.
2. Due to this instant fame achieved by Siddharth, Appellant 3 had signed him up for one of
their youth icon ambassador programmes wherein one could register and pay to spend
time with their ambassadors. Having been successful in the singing department, he was
also the winner of the famous reality show ‘Big Brother’ in the year 2020, which was
telecasted on an Over-The-Top (OTT) platform owned by Appellant no. 2. Thereafter,
Appellant no. 2 entered into an exclusive agreement dated 1st March, 2020 with
Siddharth whereby Siddharth had assigned all his rights and interests in his personality to
Appellant no. 2 for a period of two years. As per the terms of the agreement, Appellant

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 8

no. 2 also had the exclusive right over all works and creations of Siddharth for the term of
the agreement, even in case of untimely demise of Siddharth.
3. Siddharth hailed from New Delhi and came from a family of famous classical singers.
His father Appellant no.1 was very fond of his son; he was completely against
Siddharth’s inclination towards becoming a social media influencer and his decision to
move to Mumbai in 2017. They had not spoken to each other since the day he left for
Mumbai.
4. Siddharth was diagnosed as being infected from Covid-19 pandemic on 26th January,
2021 and unfortunately passed away on 28th February, 2021. During the last rites of
Siddharth, Appellant no.1 refused to recognize Respondent as his daughter-in-law and
blamed her influence for his son’s untimely demise.
5. On 31st December, 2021 an announcement made by Respondent on Twitter that she is
working on the script of a documentary which will be taking inspiration from Siddharth’s
life and that the same would be released on 28th February, 2022. She also revealed that
the documentary will include 2-3 love songs penned down, sung and recorded by
Siddharth, expressing his love for Respondent which was in her possession. No one was
aware about the existence of these songs apart from Respondent because it was recorded
by Siddharth during the period when nationwide lockdown was imposed in the country.
This announcement by Respondent lead to many OTT platforms calling up Shehnaaz
manager expressing their interest in wanting to stream the same and seeking an
appointment, since the OTT platforms wanted to exploit the commercial opportunity this
documentary presented. Then Respondent finally entered into a production agreement
with Appellant no. 2, because Siddharth was associated with Appellant no.2 for a long
time.
6. According to Appellant 1, Respondent was commercially exploiting his son’s legacy and
memories. Also, it was his opinion that Respondent would use this documentary as a tool
to portray Siddharth’s family in a bad light particularly him as an estranged, unloving,
domineering father.
7. In January, 2022, Appellant 1 filed a suit before High Court of Delhi claiming to be the
legal heir of Siddharth and seeking injunction against Respondent from using Siddharth’s
life and story in any documentary or film contending that any such publication,

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 9

production or depiction would be an infringement of personality rights, publicity rights

and privacy right of his deceased son.
8. Appellant no.2 then terminated their agreement with Respondent and filed a suit seeking
specific performance of the terms of the contract along with damages against Respondent
in the High Court of Delhi. Appellant no.3 also then filed a suit for an injunction in
Patiala House Court, New Delhi claiming to have ownership over all content broadcast
by Siddharth through their platform such as their game-changing 30-second ‘feels’
against all persons wanting to use this tragedy for their own interest and not to use any
song published or photo uploaded on the same.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 10

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTARY WOULD RESULT IN

INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS, PUBLICITY RIGHTS, AND
PRIVACY RIGHTS OF APPELLANT-1 AND HID DECEASED SON?

2. WHETHER APPELLANT 2 CAN SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND

DAMAGES FROM THE RESPONDENT?

3. WHETHER APPELLANT-3 CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE CONTENT

BROADCAST BY THE DECEASED ON THEIR PLATFORM “FEELS” IS VALID?

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTARY WOULD RESULT IN

INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS, PUBLICITY RIGHTS, AND
PRIVACY RIGHTS OF APPELLANT-1 AND HID DECEASED SON?
It is contended that the appellant-1 is the legal heir of the deceased as per the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. The right to publicity is intrinsic in the right to privacy and the right to
privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Any effort to take
away the right of publicity from the individuals, to the organiser {non-human entity} of the
event would be violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Publicity rights
are inheritable to ensure that the identity of the person is not misused post his/her death and
the legal heirs of the person are able to prevent the same. The Goodwill and reputation
earned by appellant-1 deceased son during his lifetime cannot be commercially exploited by
the respondent.
2. WHETHER APPELLANT 2 CAN SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND
DAMAGES FROM THE RESPONDENT?
It is contended that the production agreement terminated by Appellant 2 is reasonable on the
basis of termination for convenience. The agreement is terminated by appellant-2 because the
respondent fails to perform the contract before the due date. The respondent has failed to
perform his part of the obligations that she has promised to perform in a contract and
therefore committed breach of contract. The appellant must be granted specific performance
and damages from the respondent for non-performance of contract due to delay.

3. WHETHER APPELLANT-3 CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE CONTENT

BROADCAST BY THE DECEASED ON THEIR PLATFORM “FEELS” IS VALID?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the terms and conditions of the appellant- 3
(ZENDER) app clearly states that it has ownership over all the content broadcast, created, posted
by its users on their app that using such content of the deceased from the app would clearly
indicate copyright infringement.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTARY WOULD RESULT IN

INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS, PUBLICITY RIGHTS, AND
PRIVACY RIGHTS OF APPELLANT-1 AND HID DECEASED SON?

1.1 That appellant-1 is the legal heir of the deceased.

1.1.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant-1 is the legal heir of
the deceased as per Hindu Succession Act2, 1956.
1.2 That the prior consent of appellant-1 is required before using the name of
hisdeceased son in any form of endorsement.
1.2.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India3 held that there cannot be any advertising or endorsement using a person's name or
identity without his/her consent. This would go against the right to privacy of an
individual.
1.2.2 It is further submitted that the right to publicity is intrinsic in the right to privacy and the
right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.4 Right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to privacy, of not
just ones' own but of one's family as well.
The only exception to the right to privacy is if the information is mentioned in public
record documents, recorded in the manner specifically prescribed under the Public
Records Act, 1993 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, no such public records
exist in the present case.
1.2.3 It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of USA5
held that any effort to take away the right of publicity from the individuals, to the
organiser {non-human entity} of the event would be violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the

2
Section 8(b)
3
R. Raja Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) SCC (6) 632
4
K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161
5
Zacchini v/s. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company 433 U.S. 562 97 S. Ct. 2849 (1977)

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 13

Constitution of India. No persona can be monopolized. The right of Publicity vests in an

individual and him alone is entitled to profit from it. It is reverentially put forth that an
individual cannot even register a trademark relating to a celebrity (living or dead) without
the celebrity’s or his or her successor’s consent6.
1.2.4 It is further submitted that as per section 387 and 578 of the Copyright Act 1957, the
performer’s right and the moral rights can be used to protect the unauthorized use of the
performers or author’s marketing rights and reputation.

6
Section 14 of the Trademarks Act,1999
7
38. Performer’s right.—
(1) Where any performer appears or engages in any performance, he shall have a special right to be known as the
“performer’s right” in relation to such performance.1 [38. Performer’s right.—(1) Where any performer appears or
engages in any performance, he shall have a special right to be known as the “performer’s right” in relation to such
performance."
(2)The performer’s right shall subsist until 2[fifty years] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the
year in which the performance is made.
(3)During the continuance of a performer’s right in relation to any performance, any person who, without the
consent of the performer, does any of the following acts in respect of the performance or any substantial part thereof,
namely:—
(a)makes a sound recording or visual recording of the performance; or
(b)reproduces a sound recording or visual recording of the performance, which sound recording or visual recording
was—
(i) made without the performer’s consent; or
(ii)made for purposes different from those for which the performer gave his consent; or
(iii) made for purposes different from those referred to in section 39 from a sound recording or visual recording
which was made in accordance with section 39; or
(c) broadcasts the performance except where the broadcast is made from a sound recording or visual recording other
than one made in accordance with section 39, or is a re-broadcast by the same broadcasting organization of an
earlier broadcast which did not infringe the performer’s right; or
(d) communicates the performance to the public otherwise than by broadcast, except where such communication to
the public is made from a sound recording or a visual recording or a broadcast, shall, subject to the provisions of
section 39, be deemed to have infringed the performer’s right.
(4) Once a performer has consented to the incorporation of his performance in a cinematograph film, the provisions
of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall have no further application to such performance.]

8
57. Author’s special right.
(1) Independently of the author’s copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said
copyright, the author of a work shall have the right——1[(1) Independently of the author’s copyright and even after
the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right—"
(a) to claim authorship of the work; and
(b)to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the
said work which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright if such distortion, mutilation, modification or
other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation: Provided that the author shall not have any right to
restrain of claim damages in respect of any adaptation of a computer programme to which clause (aa) of sub-section
(1) of section 52 applies. Explanation. —Failure to display a work or to display it to the satisfaction of the author
shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by this section.]
(2) The right conferred upon an author of a work by sub-section (1), other than the right to claim authorship of the
work, may be exercised by the legal representatives of the author.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 14

1.2.5 It is reverentially put forth that there is no specific provision under Indian law relating to
the protection of the individual’s right of publicity after his or her death. However, the
Hon’ble courts reiterated the same in various judgements.
1.2.6 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that The Supreme Court of Georgia9,
USA, raised the concern that it is essential to extend the publicity rights even after the
death of a person and held that the right to publicity was different from the right to
privacy and can be inherited to legal heirs after the death of the person. Thus, it was
recognized that it is important to ensure that publicity rights are inheritable to ensure that
the identity of the person is not misused post his/her death and the legal heirs of the
person are able to prevent the same.
1.2.7 Further, it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi10
has observed that the right of publicity is inheritable and can therefore devolve on the
individual’s legal representatives after his or her death.
1.2.8 It is reverentially put forth that the Hon’ble High Court11 held that the family of the
deceased have the right to safeguard their privacy and the history relating to their
ancestors. No third party can publish anything, whether truthful or otherwise and whether
laudatory or critical about the life of late Jalaram Bapa without consent of the plaintiff
and other direct descendants.
1.2.9 It is, therefore, most respectfully submitted that the Goodwill and reputation earned by
appellant-1 deceased son during his lifetime cannot be commercially exploited by the
respondent.
1.2.10 And therefore, an order of injunction shall be passed as per Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

2. WHETHER APPELLANT 2 CAN SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND

DAMAGES FROM THE RESPONDENT?
2.1 That appellant has terminated the agreement with the respondent is valid.

9
Martin Luther King Jr., Center for Social Change v. American Heritage Products1982 Ga.8 Media L. Rep 2377
10
ICC Development (International Ltd.) v Arvee Enterprises, 2003 (26) PTC 245
11
Kirtibhai Raval vs. Raghuram Jaisukhram Chandrani, (2010) SCC OnLine Guj 13952

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 15

2.1.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the production agreement terminated
by Appellant 2 is reasonable on the basis of termination for convenience. If any party
without giving any absolute reason terminates, the agreement is known as Termination of
Convenience. In cases of production agreement, if any party whether the publisher or
service provider terminates the agreement without giving any absolute reason and does
not comply with the termination clause if the agreement consists of such a clause. In
English case, the Court12 held that if the requirement of good faith is not present in
performing the contract, then, the party has the right to terminate the contract on the basis
of termination for convenience.
2.1.2 It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the agreement is terminated by
appellant-2 because the respondent fails to perform the contract before the due date. The
Hon'ble High Courtof Delhi13 stated that it is justified if one party terminates the contract
without following any procedure because the other party breaches contract14. This
judgment can confer that if a party commits non-performance due to delay, the other
party can terminate the contract without following any procedures if stated in the
agreement.
2.1.3 It is, therefore, most respectfully submitted that the agreement terminated by appellant-2
is reasonable on the basis of termination for convenience.
2.2 That the respondent has breached the contract
2.2.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appellant-2 is entitled to damages
by virtue of section- 7315 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is further submitted before
the Hon’ble Court that the respondent has failed to perform his part of the obligations that
she has promised to perform in a contract and therefore committed breach of contract.
2.2.1 It is reverentially put forth that the Hon’ble Court that the respondent as per the terms of
the production agreement, was supposed to begin with the work on the documentary on

12
Monde Petroleum SA vs. Western Zagros Limited (2016) EWHC 1472 (Comm.)
13
Air India Ltd Vs GATI Ltd, 2015,2015 SCC OnLine Del 10220
14
Sec 39 of the ICA
15
Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who
suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss
or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the
parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 16

10th January 2022. But the respondent failed to comply with the same. The respondent
and her team managers suddenly started ignoring appellant-2’s calls and messages. The
respondent was also required to provide appellant-2 with the songs penned down and
sung by the deceased so that appellant-2 could finally begin with the shooting of the said
documentary in the decided time period as per the agreement. To which the respondent
failed to comply. Hence,she committed a breach by not performing her part of the
obligations that she promised to perform in the above-said agreement.
2.2.2 It is, therefore, most respectfully submitted that in the light of the above-mentioned
statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements and facts and circumstances it is clear that
facts that actually occurred in the life of any public figure cannot be copyrighted.

2.3 That respondent must perform specific performance and provide damages.
2.3.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the appellant must be granted specific
performance and damages from the respondent for non-performance of contract due to
delay. As per Section-1016 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance of the
terms of the contract shall be granted to the appellant as non-performance of the terms of
the contract would incur a severe loss to the appellant-2.
2.3.2 It is reverentially put forth that the appellant-2 was required to arrange crew members,
screenwriters, director, creative team members etc. before the beginning of the shoot i.e.
10th January 2022. To which, appellant-2 strictly adhered and was ready and willing to
fulfill the terms of the agreement. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that
the appellant-2 was willing to perform the contract but the respondent was not willing to
perform the contract.
In reference to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court17held that for the party who wants to seek specific performance, it is must for that

16
Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, states “Cases in which specific performance of contract enforceable.

Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the
court, be enforced—
(a) when there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage caused by the non-
performance of the act agreed to be done; or
(b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance would not afford
adequate relief.
17
Mehboob-ur-Rehman v. AhsanulGhan (2019) SCC OnLine SC 203Mehboob-ur-Rehman v. Ahsanul Ghan (2019)
SCC OnLine SC 203

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 17

party to prove the readiness and willingness to perform the important aspects of the
contract.
3. WHETHER APPELLANT-3 CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE CONTENT
BROADCAST BY THE DECEASED ON THEIR PLATFORM “FEELS” IS VALID?

3.1 That appellant-3 app’s terms and conditions clearly mention that appellant-3 has
ownership over the content broadcast by their users.

3.1.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the terms and conditions of the
appellant-3(ZENDER) app clearly states that it has ownership over all the content broadcast,
created, posted by its users on their app.
3.1.2 It is further submitted that “FEELS” is one of its app features that is equally used by its
app users. Since its terms and conditions are also applied to its 30-second “FEELS” feature.
Therefore, all the content uploaded by its users on this feature makes the appellant-3 the right
owner
3.1.3 It is reverentially put forth that the deceased was also one amongst its users. And was
frequently active in posting content on its FEELS feature.
And therefore, it is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble Court that appellant-3’s claim
of ownership over all the content broadcast by the deceased through their platform “FEEL”
stands valid.
3.2 That using such content of the deceased from the app would clearly indicate
copyright infringement.
3.2.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that as per Section-5118 and 5519 of
the Copyright Act, 1957 appellant-3 being the owner of all the content broadcast,
posted by the deceased on its platform can sue the parties infringing the same.

18
When copyright infringed. —Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under
this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent
authority under this Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or 1[(ii)
permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication
constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for
believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or] 1[(ii) permits for profit
any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 18

3.2.2 It is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble Court that an order of injunction shall
be passed to refrain other parties to use its content or confers any copyright
infringement.

PRAYER
infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that
such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]"
(b) when any person—
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the
copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2[***] into India, 2[***] into India," any infringing copies of the work: 3[Provided that nothing in sub-
clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.]
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in
the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an “infringing copy”.
19
Civil remedies for infringement of copyright.—
(1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided
by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be
conferred by law for the infringement of a right: Provided that if the defendant proves that at the date of the
infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the
plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for
the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing copies as the court may in the
circumstances deem reasonable.
(2) Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a name purporting to be that to the author or
the publisher, as the case may be, appears on copies of the work published, or, in the case of an artistic work,
appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears or appeared shall, in any proceeding in
respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the author or the
publisher of the work, as the case may be.
(3) The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall be in the discretion of
the court.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -

 Page | 19

Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited, that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow:

1. That as per the contention of Appellant-1 injunction order shall be passed against the
respondent from using the deceased life and story in any documentary or film.
2. Thatas per the contention of Appellant-2 specific performance of the terms of the contract
and requisite damages shall be provided to appellant-2.
3. That as per the contention of Appellant-3 an order of injunction shall be passed against
the parties publishing song or photo using content from their app.

And any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS THE APPELLANTS SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -