KRAZZY4 underlines impact of rule of law and decisive action

WITHOUT CONTEMPT

Bollywood has the country fascinated over the impact of the rule of law. This is not about any make-believe legal proceedings in movie sets, but real-life proceedings in the Bombay High Court. A young music composer, Ram Sampath, was able to get justice in the form of a Rs 2-crore settlement from the Rakesh Roshan family, a big name in the movie industry.

In Krazzy4, a movie scheduled for release last Friday, the Roshans had used music composed by Sampath, who had composed the music for Sony Ericsson for use by Sony Ericsson in its advertising material. He claimed credit and compensation for unauthorised use of his intellectual property by Krazzy4. The movie-makers claimed that the music had been composed by a member of the Roshan family, even while indeed acknowledging that it was based on the music for Sony-Ericsson ad. In simple terms, it was copied from the original composition by Sampath.

Sony Ericsson obviously did not have any power to consent to use of property they did not own. Therefore, Krazzy4 was indeed obliged to give credit and pay for use of the music, which had been passed off as the movie-makers' own original intellectual property.

The Bombay High Court agreed to hear the dispute urgently to consider interim relief, with only 48 hours left for the movie release.

A release of the movie without protective orders would have resulted in the claim being frustrated. The Court was satisfied of the merits of the case and injuncted the release of the movie unless the movie makers deleted the infringing music. Since it was evident that the Court understood the merits of the case, and the commercial expense of having to delete the infringing music would have been prohibitive, the defendants settled the dispute with Sampath by paying the amount claimed in the suit.

What the Bombay High Court did last week was to demonstrate how the rule of law leads parties to settle dispute and respect rights.

When Courts react swiftly and decisively upon facts becoming crystal clear even at an interim stage, parties re-adjust their positions and settle disputes. Such settlements, in turn, result in the burden of the Courts being significantly relieved.

This is an impressive development for the rule of law in India. Suits filed decades ago are still undergoing trial in various High Courts. There would still be millions of disputes in lower Courts, where a High Court does not have original jurisdiction, where trials take place decades after the dispute arose.

Decisions of such lower Courts would then be subject to layers of appeals, each of which could drag on for several years.

It has become profitable to infringe third party commercial rights simply because enforcement takes ages. By the time the dispute and the relevant facts undergo trial, the claimant could have undergone several dramatic changes in his station in life.

It is such circumstances that lead people to resort to extra-Constitutional measures to get justice.

Indeed, it is little wonder that Bollywood has historically been inextricably intertwined with the underworld for dispute resolution.

Litigation in the US is feared, and parties settle disputes quickly, only because US society understands that courts would not hesitate to rule firmly and adjudge damages realistically. Indian courts are niggardly in awarding damages "� even in cases where "costs" are imposed (the party in the wrong can be asked to bear the costs of litigation) "�the amounts awarded have no co-relation to the costs actually incurred.

This column is not intended to be a comment on Courts or the judiciary. The very fact that Sampath still knocked the doors of the judiciary shows that the system can work, and cynicism has not completely eroded faith in the legal system.

In his place, perhaps even I may not have held much hope of timely and effective justice.

(The author is a partner of JSA, Advocates & Solicitors. The views expressed herein are his own.)

somasekhar@jsalaw.com