text:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-12-2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN O.A.No.1225 of 2010 to 1227 of 2010 in C.S.No.956 of 2010 Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director, Operations, Mr.V.C.Praveen having its Office at No.66, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. .. Plaintiff vs. 1.
M/s.Johny Sagariga Cinema Square, Proprietary concern, Represented by Mr.Johny Thomas, Having its Office at Rajaji Road, Ernakulam, Kerala.
3.Mr.Ramesh Babu, Ekaveera Creations, Mathura Apartments, III Floor, 1/7, Masilamani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
(Amended as per order of Court in A.No.6791/2010 dated 1.12.2010)
4.Prasad Film Laboratory, Represented by its Manager, No.58, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093.
5.Gemini Industries and Imaging Private Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Mr.Ramkumar, No.28, Bangaru Colony, West K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078.
6.Sakthi Chidambaram, Cinema Paradise, No.108, Duraiarasan Street, First Floor, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093.
(impleaded as per common order of Court in A.Nos.6792 to 6795 of 2010 dated 1.12.2010) .. Defendants For Plaintiff : Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari.
For First Defendant : Ms.P.Meghana Nair For Second Defendant : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Elambharathi For Third Defendant : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Fourth Defendant : Mr.R.Sargunaraj COMMON ORDER Pending suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyrights in the Malayalam Cinematographic Film "Body Guard", under an Agreement dated 22.1.2010 and for consequential reliefs of permanent injunction as well as for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,88,58,187/-, the plaintiff has come up with 3 applications, in O.A. Nos.1225, 1226 and 1227 of 2010, praying inter alia for (i) an interim injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from in any way dealing with the negative and positive prints of the remake Tamil version of the aforesaid Malayalam feature film titled "Kavalan" from the fourth defendant (ii) an interim injunction restraining the fourth defendant from in any way parting with the negative and positive prints of the aforesaid film to defendants 2 and 3 and (iii) an interim injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from in any way releasing or causing to release for exhibition, the Tamil film "Kavalan".
2. I have heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, Ms.P.Meghana Nair, learned counsel for the first defendant, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the second defendant, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the third defendant and Mr.R.Sargunaraj, learned counsel for the fourth defendant.
3. In brief, the plaint proceeds on the following lines:-
(a) The first defendant is the Producer and the second defendant is the Director of the Malayalam feature film titled "Body Guard". As a Producer, the first defendant is the absolute owner of the copyrights in the story, script, sound track and music. The first defendant is also the owner of the literary, dramatical and musical works of the said film.
(b) The Malayalam film which was due to be released on 23.1.2010 was stuck due to a financial crisis and hence the first defendant approached the plaintiff for advancing a sum of Rs.4,20,33,700/-, with an offer to assign the copyrights in the film. The plaintiff agreed and an Agreement was entered into on 22.1.2010 and a sum of Rs.3,90,00,000/- was paid to the first defendant, to enable him to release the film in Malayalam, after settling all his financial commitments.
(c) The first defendant executed 4 promissory notes, all dated 22.1.2010, with the first 3 pro-notes for a sum of Rs.1 crore each and the 4th pro-note for a sum of Rs.90 lakhs. Under the Agreement, the copyrights including the rights of remaking, dubbing and world satellite rights as well as video rights were assigned by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
(d) The first defendant also put the fifth defendant on notice of the assignment of those rights in favour of the plaintiff, by a letter dated 21.1.2010. The fifth defendant claimed that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was due to them by the first defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff made payment of the said amount to the fifth defendant and the same was acknowledged by them by letter dated 2.4.2010.
(e) Towards repayment of the amount borrowed, the first defendant made payments. After adjusting those payments, a sum of Rs.1,88,58,157/- was due and payable as on the date of the plaint.
(f) However, the plaintiff came to know that disputes between the first and second defendant had arisen, leading to civil and criminal cases. It was understood that in those cases, the second defendant was claiming rights over the story, screen play and dialogue of the aforesaid film. It was also understood that the second defendant fabricated certain documents and created false evidence against the first defendant.
(g) While the first defendant filed a criminal complaint against the second defendant, the second defendant filed a civil suit on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam on the basis of documents ante dated, created and fabricated. The second defendant has claimed that he has assigned the rights to remake the film in Tamil, to the third defendant.
(h) The District Munsif Court, Ernakulam, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it is only the District Court, which has jurisdiction.
(i) Since the defendants 2 and 3 started producing the remake of the film in Tamil with the title "Kavalan", in violation of the copyrights that the plaintiff has by virtue of the assignment made by the first defendant, the plaintiff had filed the above suit for the reliefs indicated in the first paragraph of this order.
4. The common affidavit filed in support of the applications for injunction, proceeds on the same lines as the plaint. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat them.
5. The first defendant has filed a common counter affidavit to the applications for injunction. He has stated therein that he produced the Malayalam feature film titled "Body Guard" by engaging the services of the first defendant on a remuneration of Rs.40 lakhs; that the only Agreement entered into between the first and second defendants was a project report dated 4.12.2008, filed with the Kerala Film Producers' Association; that the production commenced on 12.12.2008 and was completed after more than 120 days with an exposure of more than 1 lakh feet of film, as against the Agreement to complete it in 45 days with an exposure of 50,000 feet of film; that due to the delay in the completion of the film and the negligence on the part of the second defendant, a huge financial burden fell upon the first defendant, in spite of which, the second defendant not only collected his entire remuneration of Rs.40 lakhs, but also collected an additional remuneration of Rs.10 lakhs; that therefore the first defendant was forced to borrow Rs.3,90,00,000/- from the plaintiff under an Agreement dated 22.1.2010; that in lieu of the loan, the first defendant assigned the remaking and dubbing rights of the film in all other Indian languages, to the plaintiff, as a security; that it is only after this that the first defendant was able to release the film on 23.1.2010, but the film did not achieve the desired success at the box office; that the second defendant thereafter agreed to help the first defendant and also issued 3 cheques for a total amount of Rs.50 lakhs, on 4.3.2010 after taking the signatures of the first defendant on blank signed non-judicial stamp papers and blank signed letter heads; that those cheques bounced and returned on 5.3.2010; that thereafter, the second defendant merely remitted Rs.1,50,000/- into the bank account of the first defendant on 13.3.2010, but did not return the blank signed non-judicial stamp papers and blank signed letter heads; that due to the failure of the Malayalam film at the box office, the first defendant was not able to repay the loan to the plaintiff; that when the first defendant started looking for parties interested in buying the remaining rights of the film, he came to know from the Tamil Film Industry that the Malayalam film was being remade into Tamil, on the basis of the sale of the rights by the second defendant to the third defendant; that when the first defendant confronted the second defendant, he produced a copy of an alleged letter dated 12.3.2010 written by the first defendant, giving the entire rights for the remake of the film to the second defendant; that the said letter is a forged and fabricated document; that therefore the first defendant filed a criminal complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.370 of 2010, in pursuance of a direction issued by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet; that the first defendant thereafter filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.729 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam and obtained an interim order of injunction, on the basis of forged documents viz., an Agreement dated 23.6.2009 and the letter of undertaking dated 12.3.2010; that the order of the District Munsif Court, granting an injunction in favour of the second defendant is under challenge by the first defendant in CMA No.92 of 2010 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam; that once the dues of the plaintiff are settled, the copyrights in the film, including the rights for its remake would revert to the first defendant; that since defendants 2, 3 and 6 are not possessed of sufficient means, the copyrights of the film that the first defendant holds will get defeated if the film is released; that the monetary value of the copyright that the first defendant has over the Tamil remake of the film is estimated at Rs.5 crores; and that therefore, the rights of the first defendant are to be safeguarded.
6. The story scripted in the counter affidavit filed by the second defendant proceeds on the following lines:-
(a) that he conceived and developed a theme for the Malayalam movie titled "Body Guard" and wrote the story, screen play and dialogue and also directed the film, on terms and conditions mutually agreed, orally;
(b) that the terms and conditions were later reduced into writing in the form of an Agreement dated 23.6.2009, under which the right of exploitation of the story, screen play and dialogues of the film in any other language was conferred on him;
(c) that by a letter dated 12.12.2009, the first defendant himself expressed a desire to remake the film in Tamil along with the second defendant, but the second defendant did not agree to the same;
(d) that even when the film was being made in Malayalam, there were reports in the press that it will be made in Tamil by the second defendant;
(e) that on 10.7.2009, the second defendant entered into an Agreement with the third defendant, indicating that the copyright vested in the second defendant and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was received under the Agreement as advance;
(f) that in March 2010, the first defendant sought a loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the second defendant and hence the second defendant issued 3 cheques;
(g) that since the funds in the bank were insufficient, the second defendant paid Rs.25 lakhs by way of cash on 6.3.2010, a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- by way of cash cheque on 6.3.2010, Rs.14 lakhs by way of cash on 12.3.2010 and Rs.1,50,000/- by way of RTGS transfer;
(h) that the above payments were acknowledged by a letter dated 13.3.2010 by the first defendant;
(i) that by a letter of undertaking dated 12.3.2010, the first defendant confirmed that the second defendant had the right to sell and the right to remake the film into Tamil or any other language;
(j) that the shooting of the Tamil film commenced in April 2010;
(k) that at that time, the first defendant threatened to obstruct the production of the film and hence a suit in O.S.No.729 of 2010 was filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam;
(l) that by an order dated 30.10.2010, the Munsif Court made the injunction earlier granted, absolute and the Appellate Court did not grant stay of the order of injunction;
(m) that the plaintiff ought to have done due diligence before allegedly advancing money to the first defendant, especially when a news item was published in the leading Malayalam Daily "Malayala Manorama" on 20.1.2010 itself that the second defendant was to make the film in Tamil;
(n) that having recovered part of the money advanced, the plaintiff cannot lay his claim on copyright; and
(o) that the plaintiff could only be taken to be a financier who lent money for the production of the Malayalam film and hence cannot claim any right other than those in the Malayalam feature film.
7. The third defendant has filed a counter, mostly on the same lines as found in the counter affidavit of the second defendant. In addition, the third defendant has relied upon Section 18(2) of the Copyright Act. He has also claimed that he had so far spent more than Rs.30 crores for the production and Rs.2 crores towards publicity. The main thrust of the third defendant in his counter is that the Agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant is only that of an Agreement relating to a loan transaction and not relating to assignment of copyrights.
8. The plaintiff has filed a set of about 9 documents. The first defendant has filed a set of 15 documents, the second defendant has filed a set of 12 documents and the third defendant has filed 3 documents.
9. As seen from the reliefs sought for in the suit, the plaintiff has not only sought for injunctive reliefs on the ground that he holds assignment of the copyrights, but has also sought for a money decree. The money decree sought for by the plaintiff is not towards damages for infringement of copyright. But it is for recovery of money advanced under an Agreement dated 22.1.2010. This is why a fundamental issue is raised as to whether the Agreement dated 22.1.2010 entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant, could be construed as an Agreement of assignment of copyright or could be taken only as a mere document evidencing a loan transaction and creating a charge on the property rights of the first defendant.
10. The issue raised is of great significance, since the consequences that would flow out of my finding on the above issue one way, would be different from those flowing out of my finding the other way. If I find that the Agreement dated 22.1.2010 filed as plaint document No.1 is an Agreement of assignment of copyrights, the plaintiff would be entitled to protection in terms of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. On the other hand, if I find that the said Agreement merely relates to a loan transaction, the question of infringement of copyright may not arise. Therefore, my first endeavour is to find out what that Agreement stands for.
11. The preamble to the said Agreement states that the first defendant is the Producer and the exclusive copyright holder of the film and that the first defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.3.90 crores. Clause 2 of the Agreement states that the plaintiff agreed to finance a sum of Rs.3.90 crores to enable the first defendant to settle the account of the financiers and others in order to facilitate the release of the film and that the first defendant agreed to repay the amount with interest at 36% per annum on demand.
12. Clause 3 of the Agreement which forms the lifeline of the contract, reads as follows:-
"In order to facilitate the repayment and secure the interest of the Party of the SECOND PART, the Party of the FIRST PART agree that:
(i) The entire collection from the theatres, in Kerala, other part of India and Abroad will be paid to the Party of the SECOND PART directly, for which necessary instruction will be given by the Party of the FIRST PART to the concerned party.
(ii) The remake, dubbing rights of the aforesaid movie in all Indian languages is exclusively assigned to the Party of the SECOND PART.
(iii) Whole world satellite right, negative right and Video rights of the film exclusively assigned to the Party of the SECOND PART.
(iv) The assignor grants the sole, absolute, exclusive and irrevocable negative rights, and all other rights of exploitation of the here in above captioned film for the territory of Entire World for a perpetual period.
13. Clause 4 of the Agreement reads as follows:-
"The Party of the FIRST PART hereby declare and confirm that the above rights assigned in favour of the Party of the SECOND PART shall be Operative immediately on signing this agreement and it will continue till the entire amount is repaid by the Party of the FIRST PART."
14. From the extracted portions of Clause 3 and 4, it is clear (i) that the assignment of the copyrights, if it could be called an assignment, was made to facilitate the repayment and secure the interest of the plaintiff and (ii) that the rights so created would continue only till the repayment of the entire amount by the first defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, prima facie, the transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant appears only to be a loan agreement, backed by the security of the right to remake the film and a charge on the right of remake.
15. The above view is also strengthened by (i) the 4 promissory notes executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff and filed as plaint document No.2 series (ii) the repayment of a part of the principal and interest, by the first defendant to the plaintiff, resulting in the claim of the plaintiff upon the first defendant getting reduced to Rs.1,88,58,157/- (iii) the statement of accounts sent by the plaintiff to the first defendant on 29.6.2010 filed as plaint document No.6, demanding a sum of Rs.1,69,76,272/- towards the balance due under the loan transaction and (iv) the statement of accounts as on 30.11.2010 filed as plaint document No.9, indicating the balance due.
16. The fact that the transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant was only a loan transaction, backed up by a security, is further strengthened by the statement made by the first defendant in para-5 of his common counter affidavit. It reads as follows:-
"I humbly submit the first defendant burdened with such a heavy financial exposure was forced to borrow a sum of Rs.3,90,00,000/- from the plaintiff under an agreement dated 22.1.2010. In lieu of the loan, the first defendant had assigned the remaking and dubbing rights of the film "Body Guard" into all other Indian languages to the plaintiff, as a security."
17. Now let us have a look at what constitutes "assignment" and the mode of assignment. Under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the owner of the copyright in an existing work may assign the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations, to any person. Under sub section (2) of Section 18, such assignee should be treated as "the owner of the copyright" for the purposes of the Act, in respect of the rights so assigned.
18. Section 19 which prescribes the mode of assignment, lays down the following:-
(a) that the assignment, to be valid, should be in writing, signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent;
(b) that the assignment should identify (i) the work (ii) the rights assigned (iii) the duration of assignment and (iv) the territorial extent of the assignment;
(c) that the assignment should also specify the amount of royalty payable to the author during the currency of the assignment;
(d) that if the assignee does not exercise the rights assigned to him under any of the other sub sections of Section 9, within one year, the assignment would be deemed to lapse after the expiry of the period;
(e) that if the period of assignment is not specified, it shall be 5 years; and
(f) that if the territorial extent of assignment is not specified, it should be presumed to extend within India.
19. A careful reading of Sections 18 and 19 would show that the purpose of assignment is actually to enable the assignee to exploit the rights that the owner of the copyright has in (i) the literary, dramatic or musical work (ii) the computer programme (iii) the artistic work (iv) the cinematograph film or (v) the sound recording. An assignment serves two purposes. For the assignee, it confers the right of exploitation for a specified period in a specified territory. For the assignor, it confers the right to receive royalty. An agreement, the sole purpose of which was just to prevent others from exploiting the copyrights of the owner and to enable the assignee to get back his loan, cannot be an agreement of assignment. In an agreement of assignment, the only right that the assignee has is the right of exploitation. The only right that the assignor has is to receive royalty. If the assignor does not exploit his rights during the period of assignment, not only would the assignment lapse on the expiry of the term, but also the money paid to the assignor would never get repaid. In other words, the rights conferred by an agreement of assignment on the assignee flow only one way. While after the expiry of the period of assignment, the copyrights flow back to the assignor, the royalty paid to the assignor never gets repaid to the assignee.
20. If we analyse the pleadings and the documents on the basis of the above principles, it would be clear that plaint document No.1 cannot be construed as a deed of assignment, inasmuch as the amount of Rs.3.90 crores paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant, if construed as royalty, would never be liable to be refunded to the plaintiff, irrespective of whether they exploit such rights during the currency of the agreement of assignment or not. The date of plaint document No.1 is 22.1.2010. Therefore, if the agreement is construed as an assignment, the plaintiff would be entitled to exercise the copyrights, till 21.1.2011, by virtue of sub section (4) of Section 19. Alternatively, the right of exploitation would be available for 5 years (until 21.1.2015) in terms of sub section (5) of Section 19. But the availability of such rights depend solely upon the question whether the amount paid under the Agreement was refundable or not. Since the amount of Rs.3.90 crores paid under plaint document No.1, has been made refundable and also since part of the said amount has already been refunded by the first defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has chosen to claim the balance amount, the document cannot at all be construed as a deed of assignment of copyright.
21. Once plaint document No.1 is construed to be not a deed of assignment of copyright, no action for infringement would lie at the instance of the plaintiff. If there was no assignment of copyright, the copyright would continue to vest with its owner. Therefore, the next question is as to who is the owner of the copyright.
22. Section 17 declares that the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. The expression "author", in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, is defined under Section 2(d)(v) to mean the producer. Therefore, as the Producer of the Malayalam feature film "Body Guard", the first defendant claims to be its "author" within the meaning of Section 2(d)(v) of the Act. Consequently, he claims to be the first owner in respect thereof, in terms of Section 17.
23. But proviso (b) under Section 17 carves out an exception. It reads as follows:-
"subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration, at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein."
24. It is interesting to note that Section 2(d)(v) actually does not synchronise well with Section 17 and the proviso (b) thereunder. Section 2(d) -
(i) makes the author of a literary or dramatic work, as the author within the meaning of the Act, under clause (i);
(ii) makes the composer of a musical work, its author within the meaning of the Act, under clause (ii);
(iii) makes the artist of an artistic work, other than a photograph, its author, within the meaning of the Act, under clause (iii);
(iv) makes the photographer as the author of the photograph taken by him under clause (iv); and
(v) makes the creator of a computer generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, its author, within the meaning of the Act, under clause (vi).
25. In other words, clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of sub section (d) of Section 2 make the creator, the author of his creation, if such creation is a literary or dramatic work or a musical work or an artistic work or a photograph or a computer generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work.
26. In deviation from the prescriptions contained in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of sub section (d) of Section 2, clause (v) makes the Producer, the author of a cinematograph film or sound recording. Section 2(d)(v) does not make either the Director or the screen play and dialogue writer of a cinematograph film, its author, despite the fact that they are the creators of the film.
27. Thus, Section 2(d) clearly maintains a distinction between (i) the creators of a literary or dramatic or musical work or an artistic work or a photograph or a computer generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work on the one hand and (ii) the creator of a cinematograph film or a sound recordist. In respect of the former categories, the creators are recognised as its authors, but in respect of the latter, the Producer is recognised as its author under Section 2(d).
28. In contrast, proviso (a) to Section 17 makes the Producer (or the employer), the first owner of a literary, dramatic or artistic work, if it was made by its creator, in the course of his employment with such Producer (or employer), unless they have an agreement to the contrary. Similarly, proviso (b) also makes the Producer (or the person at whose instance the work was created), the first owner of a photograph, painting or cinematograph film, if it was created by the creator for valuable consideration, at the instance of such Producer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
29. Unfortunately, the distinction maintained in Section 2(d) between a literary/dramatic work/musical work/artistic work/photograph or a computer generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work on the one hand and a cinematograph film and sound recording on the other hand, is not carried to its logical end in the provisos to Section 17. There appears to be a legislative mix up. Once the term "author" is defined by section 2(d) (v) to mean only the "producer" in so far as a cinematographic film is concerned and once it is declared by section 17 that such author (namely the producer) is the first owner of the copyright in the film, there was no necessity to state in proviso (b) of section 17 that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the producer will be the first owner. In respect of all works of art or music other than cinematographic film, the first ownership vests in the creator. But when they are created by the author while under a contract of employment with someone else, the first ownership vests in such person who happens to be the employer. In order to make this shift in ownership (from the author to the employer) very clear, the provisos under section 17 are inserted. But in the case of a cinematographic film, the ownership does not shift in the first instance at all, in view of the fact that the producer himself is recognised as the author. In fact, Section 2(uu) of the Act, defines the term "Producer" in relation to a cinematograph film, to mean a person who takes the initiative and responsibility for making the work. Such a person, despite not being the creator, is already recognised by Section 2(d)(v) to be its author. Omitting to take note of this, proviso (b) under Section 17 creates a confusion in so far as cinematographic film is concerned, providing a hunting ground for legal pundits.
30. Be that as it may, taking advantage of the phrase "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary" appearing in proviso (b) to Section 17, it is contended by the defendants 2 and 3 that by virtue of an agreement dated 23.6.2009, the Producer of the film viz., the first defendant gave up his first ownership to the Director of the film viz., the second defendant, in so far as the right of remaking the film in all other languages was concerned. But this agreement dated 23.6.2009, allegedly entered into between the first defendant and the second defendant (filed as document No.3 both by the first and second defendants), is assailed by the first defendant as a forged and fabricated document. Whether it is so, is a question that could be decided only at the time of trial, especially in view of the allegation made by the first defendant that his signatures were obtained in blank stamp paper and letter heads.
31. Though the truth and validity of the agreement dated 23-6-2009 are to be decided only at the time of trial, there are certain circumstances creating a suspicion about the conduct of the second defendant. I am conscious of the fact that the dispute that I have been called upon to decide, is only between the plaintiff and the defendants and not between the first defendant and the second defendant. But, the question whether the agreement dated 23.6.2009 is a forged and fabricated document or not, would arise for consideration, at least for the limited purpose of finding out whether the charge created by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff under the Agreement dated 22.1.2010 (plaint document No.1), is valid or not. If the alleged agreement dated 23.6.2009 between the first defendant and the second defendant is true and binding on the first defendant, then the charge created by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 22.1.2010, would be of no avail, since the first defendant would have had no rights as on 22.1.2010, to create a charge in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary, if the agreement dated 23.6.2009 set up by the second defendant is ultimately found to be a forged and fabricated document, then the charge created by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 22.1.2010, would be a valid one. Therefore it is necessary to examine the lis between the first defendant and the second defendant, to a limited extent, to find out if the charge created in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 22.1.2010, is valid or not.
32. It is the claim of the second defendant in his counter affidavit that he retained the rights to remake the film in Tamil, by entering into an agreement dated 23.6.2009 with the first defendant. The Malayalam film was released on 23-1-2010. After 2 months of its release, the second defendant is said to have lent a huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs on 4.3.2010 to the first defendant by way of cheques. These cheques got bounced on 5.3.2010 for insufficiency of funds. According to the first defendant, the remuneration received by the second defendant from the first defendant for writing and directing the Malayalam film itself was only Rs.50 lakhs. This claim made by the first defendant is not refuted by the second defendant. A person who received Rs.50 lakhs as remuneration for writing and directing the Malayalam film, had no reason to give back the same amount of money to the very same Producer, after two months of the release of the Malayalam film, especially by way of a loan, without even taking any promissory note. While the first defendant has claimed that while issuing cheques for Rs.50 lakhs on 4-3-2010, the second defendant obtained his signatures in blank stamp paper and letterheads, the second defendant has simply denied the same without specifically stating whether he received any acknowledgement on 4-3-2010 from the first defendant for the same. 33. Interestingly, the second defendant has made no whisper about this payment in his entire plaint before the Munsif Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.729 of 2010 filed as first defendant's document No.10 herein. It was the first defendant who made a mention about this payment in his written statement in that suit. This written statement is filed before me as first defendant's document no.11. Therefore, the background in which this payment was made especially in cash, raises doubts. To prove that he made cash payments, the second defendant relies upon a Letter of Acknowledgement dated 13-3-2010 purportedly executed by the first defendant, filed as second defendant's documents No.7. But this Letter of Acknowledgment does not state that the amount was paid as a loan by the second defendant to the first defendant. The purpose of payment is not indicated in this document.
34. Interestingly, the second defendant also relies upon a Letter of Understanding purportedly executed by the first defendant on 12-3-2010, just one day before the aforesaid letter of acknowledgment dated 13-3-2010. In the said Letter of Understanding dated 12-3-2010 filed as second defendant's document No.6, the first defendant is stated to have agreed that the story rights of the film was only with the second defendant and that the second defendant has the complete rights to remake the film in any other language. If there was already an agreement dated 23-6-2009 (second defendant's document No.3) between the first and second defendants, by which the second defendant retained the rights of remaking the film in other languages, there was no occasion or necessity for a Letter of Understanding, to be executed on 12-3-2010 after a gap of 9 months, especially when the first defendant was at the mercy of the second defendant borrowing money from him on 4-3-2010. What is intriguing is the fact that the cash payments of Rs.25 lakhs, Rs.9.50 lakhs and Rs.14 lakhs (totalling to Rs.48.50 lakhs) claimed to have been made on 6-3-2010 and 12-3-2010, are not even mentioned in the Letter of Understanding dated 12-3-2010. The Letter of Acknowledgement does not state that these payments were by way of loan.
35. The case of the first defendant is that while issuing cheques dated 4-3-2010 for RS.50 lakhs, the second defendant got his signatures in blank stamp paper and blank letter heads. Though the second defendant denies this allegation, he has not stated whether any promissory notes or bonds were obtained from the first defendant while giving a loan of Rs.50 lakhs on 4-3-2010. It is only on 13-3-2010 that the second defendant obtained a Letter of Acknowledgement for this payment. But this letter also does not indicate the nature of this transaction. The second defendant does not state anywhere, whether he obtained any document from the first defendant as evidence of the loan transaction, either on the date of payments by cheques namely, 4-3-2010 or on the date of payment by cash on 6-3-2010 and 12-3-2010. Assuming that a cash payment of Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.9.50 lakhs were made on 6-3-2010 and a cash payment of Rs.14 lakhs was made on 12-3-2010, it is not reflected in the Letter of Understanding dated 12-3-2010. The only acknowledgment relied upon by the second defendant dated 13-3-2010 also does not record it as a loan transaction. It does not even spell out the nature of the monetary transaction. Therefore the case of the first defendant that the second defendant obtained his signatures in blank stamp paper and letter heads, appears to be more probable.
36. We can look at it from another angle. Today the only proof that the second defendant has, to show that the first defendant borrowed Rs.50 lakhs from him, is the admission made by the first defendant himself. The cheque payments made on 4-3-2010 are not evidenced by any receipt or promissory note. The cash payments made on 6-3-2010 and 12-3-2010 are not evidenced by any document, except, the Letter of Acknowledgement dated 13-3-2010. That letter also does not describe it as a loan. It is baffling as to why the huge payments made on 6-3-2010 and 12-3-2010 are not reflected in a contemporaneous document dated 12-3-2010. The cumulative effect of all the above, probablises the case of the first defendant that the second defendant obtained his signatures in blank stamp paper and letter heads.
37. Before holding that the case of the first defendant is more probable than that of the second defendant, I have to take note of and deal with another contention, viz., the validity and binding nature of an interim order of injunction granted by the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam, in favour of the second defendant.
38. As a measure of retaliation to the criminal complaint lodged by the first defendant against the second defendant in Crl. M.P.No.677 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, the second defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.729 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam. The copy of the plaint, the copy of the written statement, the copy of the counter affidavit in the application for interim injunction, the copy of the reply affidavit and the order passed by the learned Munsif in I.A.No.4226 of 2010 in O.S.No.729 of 2010 are filed by the first defendant as document Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
39. It is seen from the copy of the plaint in the aforesaid suit that the relief sought for by the second defendant was for "a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiff's ownership, user and remake of the script including the story, screen play and dialogues of the Malayalam movie "Body Guard" to any other Indian and international languages". The averments contained in para-2 of the plaint, proceed wholly on the basis that the second defendant was the author of the story, screen play and dialogues of the Malayalam feature film and that the artistic work in the film was the hard and earnest efforts of the second defendant for more than a year.
40. A meaningful reading of the plaint discloses clearly that the suit is one based upon the copyright that the second defendant claimed in the cinematograph film. This is clear in the context of Section 14(1)(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which reads as follows:-
"14. Meaning of Copyright (1) For the purposes of this Act, "copyright" means the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely;-
.. .. .. ..
(d) In the case of a cinematograph film -
(i) to make a copy of the film, including a photograph of any image forming part thereof;
(ii) to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film, regardless of whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions;
(iii) to communicate the film to the public."
41. Therefore, in the light of Section 14(1)(d), it is clear that the suit filed by the second defendant against the first defendant was one for infringement of copyright, irrespective of whether he has carefully chosen not to use the expression "copyright" in his plaint or not. Moreover, Section 16 of the Act, makes it clear that no person shall be entitled to copyright or any other similar right in any work, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 16 reads as follows:-
"16. No copyright except as provided in this Act No person shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any work, whether published or unpublished, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as abrogating any right or jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or confidence."
The suit filed by the second defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam, does not fall under the category of either (i) a suit to restrain a breach of trust or (ii) a suit to restrain a breach of confidence, so as to fall within the exception carved out of Section 16. It was a suit for assertion of a right in a work, which the second defendant himself called as artistic work in para-2 of his plaint. It was a suit for injuncting the first defendant from interfering with the second defendant's right to make the film into other languages. Therefore, the suit was clearly one for infringement of copyright, which cannot be exercised otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in view of the mandate of Section 16.
42. If it is a suit for infringement of copyright or for any other remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise {as provided in Section 55(1)}, such a suit shall be instituted only in the District Court having jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 62(1) of the Act. Sub section (2) of Section 62 contains a non abstante clause, with regard to the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure as well as any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the District Munsif Court, Ernakulam did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and hence the findings recorded in the interim order passed by the said Court, cannot persuade me to adopt a similar view, on the question as to the truth and validity of the agreement dated 23.6.2009, set up by the second defendant.
43. The view that I have taken, is also fortified by the decision of Sengottuvelan, J., in Everest Pictures Circuit vs. S.Karuppannan {AIR 1982 Mad. 244}. It was held in the said case that a Civil Court may grant the relief of declaration, as to who is entitled to the copyright, but further reliefs with reference to injunction, accounting etc., can only be granted under Section 62 of the Act, by the District Court having jurisdiction. Therefore, the objection raised by the second defendant about the binding nature of the order of injunction granted by the Munsif Court, Ernakulam, cannot be sustained.
44. Once it is found that the case pleaded by the first defendant is more probable than the case pleaded by the second defendant, at least prima facie, the necessary corollary of such a finding would be that the charge created by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 22.1.2010 is true and valid. If it is true and valid, then the question is about the protection that the plaintiff is entitled to, in respect of the monies due to them.
45. A charge created on a property would always attach to the property. The charge created by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement dated 22.1.2010 (plaint document No.1), is not only on the entire collection from the theatres in Kerala in respect of the Malayalam feature film under clause 3(i), but is also in respect of the right to remake the film in all Indian languages under clause 3(ii). By remaking the Malayalam film into Tamil, the defendants 2, 3 and 6 have acted detrimental to the charge that the plaintiff has on the rights created by plaint document No.1, to remake the film in Tamil.
46. As pointed out by Hidayatullah, C.J., in his majority opinion in the 11 member Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Madhav Rao Scindia Bahadur vs. Union of India {1971 (1) SCC 85}, popularly known as the Privy Purse case, "a charge does not give rise to a right in rem under the general law relating to transfer of property, but the right is more than a mere personal obligation, for it is a jus ad rem a right to payment out of the property specified". The Constitution Bench proceeded to state in para-122 that "a charge gives a right to payment out of a specific fund or property and a right to prior payment, but does not create a right in rem in the fund or the property" and that "a charge gives rise to a right to receive payment out of a specified fund or property in preference over others".
47. Therefore, there are two alternatives available before Court viz., (i) to permit the release of the feature film in Tamil, with a direction to deposit the collections into Court to the extent of the suit claim or (ii) to direct the respondents to furnish security for the suit claim. The second alternative appears to be a more acceptable one in the facts and circumstances of the case.
48. But before proceeding to pass orders, I have to deal with one objection raised by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the third defendant, in the course of his arguments. It was his contention that the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant dated 22.1.2010 itself was a fabricated one. Apart from the fact that such a contention was not raised in the counter in precise terms, the contention raised in the course of arguments, was only an inferential innovation spun out of the circumstances, by the counsel while on feet. According to the learned counsel, the Lab letter relied upon by the plaintiff (filed as plaint document No.3), is dated 22.1.2010. It refers to a letter received by Gemini Colour Laboratory, the fifth defendant herein, from the first defendant on 21.1.2010, in which, the first defendant had already claimed to have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. But the agreement was only dated 22.1.2010. Therefore, the learned counsel for the third defendant contended that plaint document No.1 is a fabricated one.
49. But the said contention, though attractive, is without substance. The payments recorded in the agreement dated 22.1.2010 are confirmed by the statement of account issued by the Catholic Syrian Bank, Kodambakkam Branch, filed as plaint document No.17. There are two payments made by way of cheques bearing Nos.149203 and 149205 for a total amount of Rs.3.90 crores. These payments were also backed up by 4 promissory notes, filed as plaint document No.2 series. The first defendant admits the receipt of the money and the execution of the agreement dated 22.1.2010. A part of the money has also been repaid, on account of which the claim made by the plaintiff has come down to Rs.1,88,58,187/-. In such circumstances, the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant cannot be just pooh-poohed.
50. Yet another contention was raised that the liability to pay money to the plaintiff, was only that of the first defendant and hence the plaintiff could have nothing to do with the release of the picture. This is true to some extent. This is why the relief prayed for by the plaintiff in paragraph-26 (e) of the plaint, is only for recovery of money from the first defendant. Though all other prayers relate to infringement of copyright and they may not be sustainable in view of my finding that plaint document No.1 cannot be construed as a deed of assignment of copyright, the plaintiff has a charge over the right to remake the film in Tamil, in view of my finding on the nature of the agreement dated 22.1.2010. Therefore, the plaintiff has a right to priority of payment over the others, from out of the feature film in Tamil.
51. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the defendants should be directed to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim viz., a sum of Rs.1,88,58,187/-. The plaintiff not only has a prima facie case, but also balance of convenience in their favour. It is clear from the pleadings that as on date, the third defendant claims a right to make the film in Tamil and the second defendant claims a right to remake the film in all other languages. Once the film is released in Tamil, the third defendant would go out of the picture and the plaintiff may not be able to proceed against him, for enforcing the charge, in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in getting a decree for enforcement of the charge. Similarly, the enforcement of the charge against the second defendant would be a moot question, unless he remakes the film in any language other than Malayalam and Tamil. Therefore, the balance of convenience is only in favour of the plaintiff and unless the release of the feature film in Tamil is made subject to the defendants offering security, for the suit claim, the charge that they have will dissipate. This is in view of the fact that the third defendant has claimed in his counter that he had already spent more than Rs.30 crores for the production of the picture in Tamil. Therefore, allowing him to release the picture, would take care of his interests. At the same time, directing him to furnish security for the suit claim, would take care of the interests of the plaintiff also. As a matter of fact, granting an order of injunction would jeopardise the interests of the defendants and the refusal to grant an order of injunction would jeopardise the interests of the plaintiff. But an order to furnish security for the suit claim, as a condition for the release of the film would balance the interests of all the parties
52. Therefore, the prayers for interim orders of injunction made in A.Nos.1225 to 1227 of 2010 are rejected. However, the applications are disposed of with a direction to the defendants to furnish security for the suit claim before the actual release of the feature film in Tamil. The applications are disposed of accordingly and there will be no order as to costs.
21-12-2010 Index : Yes. Internet : Yes. Svn V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. Svn Common Order in O.A.No.1225 of 2010 to 1227 of 2010 in C.S.No.956 of 2010 21-12-2010


text:
The Bucks are locked and loaded and have their sights set on the prize this upcoming season. With a young talented roster, Milwaukee looks ready to overcome the top dogs of the Eastern Conference and bring home a NBA championship. Division rivals, the Chicago Bulls and the Indiana Pacers will fight to prevent the Bucks' aspirations. Get your Milwaukee Bucks tickets and head down to BMO Harris Bradley Center and help lead your team to victory.
Situated in downtown Milwaukee, makes the Bradley Center a great destination for a night out. Located near museums, theaters, restaurants, and bars, there is something for everything to enjoy pre and post Bucks contests. With new renovations finally approved, Milwaukee fans will be enjoy a first class game day experience, every time out!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kenmochi Rattan Chair
This classic chair by Isamu Kenmochi was first released around 1961 and has now been re-released. It's the mark of a great design that it can still look current almost 50 years later. Made of rattan it can be used indoors or outdoors (away from rain and crud, however) .


text:
This affair was pompously announced in all the newspapers while I was nearly reduced to beggary.
So must we all, each in his job, if life isn't to turn to beggary.
The fair-seeming bubble burst, and the rich man of one day found himself on the morrow virtually reduced to beggary.
Fragonard, who had been the darling of his age, died in neglect and beggary.
Over a thousand lives were lost, nearly as many persons were crippled, and three thousand were in a few hours reduced to beggary.
With all its wisdom, will it not be reduced to beggary and starvation?
He has gart me wise it awa to Charlie, and well hae nathing as lang as Kilmarkeckle lives, but scant and want and beggary.
But that was no distinction in Yuchovitch; the whole village was poor almost to beggary.
She stood silent with a pitying face, and believed in all the pretences of beggary which Lucy saw through by natural insight.
That story about my being rescued from beggary is the vision of a diseased brain.


text:
Shopping Cart
0 item ($0.00)
$50 more for free shipping* Contiguous U.S.
Technical Features
Product Description
The Seavenger 1.5mm Mesh Reef Diving Gloves are great for warm water divers and snorkelers who cannot afford to sacrifice thermal protection for maximum dexterity.
The reinforced Amara palms stand up against sharp reefs, lobster spines and other rough surfaces. Velcro adjustable wrist closure ensures the comfort and precise fit. Lycra panel insertion features maximum stretch, waterproof glued and blindstitched seams are durable and pre-curved anatomical pattern reduce hand fatigue when gloves are worn for long periods of time.
Materials: 44% Synthetic Amara, 22% Neoprene Rubber, 34% Nylon


text:
Search continues for missing climber
The Clackamas County Sheriff's Office is continuing search and rescue efforts for missing climber Kinley Adams on Mt. Hood. Adams has been missing since Sunday when he went to Mt. Hood and attempted to climb the Leuthold Coulour.
Mountain Rescue resources departed the command post at approximately 5:00 a.m. Tuesday by snow cat in effort to reach Crater Rock and the Reid Headwall while there is a small break in the weather. Search teams have been asked to do a safety assessment in terms of climbing and if it is safe to do so they will be searching in the area.
A second group of climbers is set to depart around 8 a.m. and will be searching in lower elevations. Volunteers from Pacific Northwest Search and Rescue will be climbing upwards from the area of Ramona Falls towards the Reid Glacier with a spotting scope in hopes of locating Adams at lower elevations or through the spotting scope.
Optimism remains high that Mr. Adams is still alive and just in need of assistance.


text:
Pro-God, Pro-Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, pro-Constitution, Pro-Republic, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Jesuit Order, Pro-9/11 Truth Movement, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Internet Security: NSA Exploited Heartbleed Bug For YEARS, Leaving Consumers Vulnerable To Attack
Posted by Timothy at 4/12/2014 04:25:00 PM
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
The movie's distributor says there is no connection between any of their conduct and the alleged loss or damages that Sarah Jones' family contends to suffer.
The "Midnight Rider" legal case is far from a settlement. Open Road Films is seeking to dismiss itself from the civil lawsuit that Sarah Jones' family filed against them after the camera assistant was accidentally killed by a train during an on-set filming on February 22.
In a court filing, Open Road Films as the distributor of the doomed film stated that there's "no causal connection between any conduct of Open Road and any alleged loss or damages plaintiffs contend they suffered." The company also argued that the Chatham County State Court lacked jurisdiction over them.
Jones' family named 18 defendants when they launched a lawsuit in May, arguing that the crew knew they did not have permission to shoot on the CSX railroad tracks where the accident happened. The family complained that Open Road had "individual responsibility for ensuring that 'Midnight Rider' filming was conducted in a safe and legal manner, in compliance with applicable industry standards."
Putting the blame on others for safety on the set, Open Road pointed out that Jones "did not exercise ordinary care, caution and prudence in connection with the transactions and events alleged in the complaint." The company said, "Plaintiffs' claim is barred, in whole or in part, because Jones freely and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and damage in the complaint."
In addition to the dismissal, Open Road asked the judge to prevent the plaintiffs from recovering damages from the company or that any damages must be "proportionately reduced".


text:
Submit Content
NBA 2K for DreamcastHome / Submit Cheats /
Post Cheats
Submissions should include a description of what the cheat will do, and detailed descriptions of how to go about using the cheat. Try to give as accurate a code title and description as possible.
Submit Cheats
Game Related Options
Released Games
- Escape 2042: The Truth Defenders, (DC)
- Rush Rush Rally Reloaded, (DC)
- Breakers, (DC)
- Elysian Shadows, (DC)
- Elansar And Philia, (DC)
- Alice's Mom's Rescue, (DC)
- Redux: Dark Matters, (DC)
- Sturmwind, (DC)
- Cool Herders, (DC)
Popular Games
- Dragon's Blood, (DC)
- Sturmwind, (DC)
- San Francisco Rush 2049, (DC)
- Frogger 2: Swampy's Revenge, (DC)
- AeroWings 2: Airstrike, (DC)
- Cannon Spike, (DC)
- Spawn: In The Demon's Hand, (DC)
- The End Of Infinity, (DC)
- Bakuretsu Muteki Bangaioh, (DC)
- Moho, (DC)
New Added Games


text:
Preparations Move Forward for Next Galileo Launch
Galileo Flight Model #3 (FM3) is readied for the satellite's fit check on the dispenser that will carry it and FM4 in a parallel arrangement on Soyuz' next launch. The silver-colored dispenser is partly visible behind two mission team members during this activity in the Spaceport's S1B payload preparation building.
Both Galileo navigation satellites for Arianespace's third Soyuz flight from the Spaceport are now in French Guiana, marking a new milestone for this mission scheduled in the second half of 2012, according to Arianespace.
The Flight Model #4 (FM4) satellite arrived Friday at Félix Eboué International Airport near the capital city of Cayenne, delivered by a chartered Ilyushin Il-76TD cargo jetliner.
Its FM3 co-passenger remains busy in the Spaceport's S1B payload preparation building — completing its fit check with the dispenser for the dual-satellite payload arrangement on Soyuz. The dispenser was developed for Arianespace by RUAG Space, and carries the satellites in a parallel arrangement.
These two spacecraft will join another pair of Galileo satellites launched by Arianespace in October 2011 on Soyuz' maiden flight from French Guiana. All four are In-Orbit Validation platforms that will enable European industry to validate prototype Galileo-based receivers and services using actual satellite signals, while also allowing performance assessments of the ground system that will maintain the Galileo system's precision.
Arianespace is responsible for deploying the entire Galileo constellation, to be composed of 30 satellites in orbit as an independent global satellite navigation system for Europe.
Galileo launches began with the 2005 and 2008 orbiting of two experimental satellites — GIOVE-A and GIOVE-B — carried on Soyuz vehicles operated from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan by Arianespace's Starsem affiliate. It was followed by October 2011's maiden Soyuz launch from French Guiana with the constellation's first two operational satellites.
Arianespace is able to use a mix of both its medium-lift Soyuz and heavy-lift Ariane 5 launchers in deploying the full Galileo system, demonstrating the company's flexibility in orbiting satellite constellations.
The photo shows FM4's unloading from the Ilyushin Il-76TD cargo jetliner at Cayenne's Félix Eboué International Airport.
The fourth Galileo flight model satellite being unloaded at Cayenne Airport in French Guiana on August 17. (Credits: ESA/EADS Astrium – Raoul Kieffer)


text: Show Hide image 20 December 2012 The New Statesman Christmas Quiz 2012 Test your knowledge of things, people and events that stood out in the course of 2012 against Olav Bjortomt's questions for the NS. Sign up for our weekly email * 2012 New Statesman Christmas Quiz About | Privacy | Terms A longer version of this quiz appears in the current issue of the New Statesman, guest edited by Brian Cox and Robin Ince. You can a copy in shops until Thursday 3 January, or purchase a print or digital version here. Subscribe from just £1 per issue More


text:
Looking for a bargain? Visit our online outlet store, where you'll find all your favourite Australian brands at massively discounted prices.
Special Price
Regular Price:
The zip wondersuit in comfy stretchy cotton and cute prints with a 2-way zip!
Standard Shipping is free within Australia and usually takes up to 7 business days to be delivered. Charges also apply for delivery outside of Australia. Express shipping is currently unavailable.
We will accept change of mind returns on products delivered within Australia for up to 30 days from the date of receipt, or if faulty. View returns policy
We recommend you wash your garment before you wear it. Each garment label will provide the specific material and care instructions for your guidance, so please make sure you check these.
Fire hazard classification according to AS/NZS 1249:2003:
Prefer to purchase in person? No problem, we've got you covered with real-time stock availability.


text:
Chapter 1
1 This is the word of the LORD that came to Jonah, son of Amittai: 1 2 "Set out for the great city of Nineveh, and preach against it; their wickedness has come up before me." 3 2 But Jonah made ready to flee to Tarshish away from the LORD. He went down to Joppa, found a ship going to Tarshish, paid the fare, and went aboard to journey with them to Tarshish, away from the LORD. 4 The LORD, however, hurled a violent wind upon the sea, and in the furious tempest that arose the ship was on the point of breaking up. 5 Then the mariners became frightened and each one cried to his god. To lighten the ship for themselves, they threw its cargo into the sea. Meanwhile, Jonah had gone down into the hold of the ship, and lay there fast asleep. 6 The captain came to him and said, "What are you doing asleep? Rise up, call upon your God! Perhaps God will be mindful of us so that we may not perish." 7 Then they said to one another, "Come, let us cast lots to find out on whose account we have met with this misfortune." So they cast lots, and thus singled out Jonah. 8 "Tell us," they said, "what is your business? Where do you come from? What is your country, and to what people do you belong?" 9 "I am a Hebrew," Jonah answered them; "I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land." 10 Now the men were seized with great fear and said to him, "How could you do such a thing!"--They knew that he was fleeing from the LORD, because he had told them.-- 11 "What shall we do with you," they asked, "that the sea may quiet down for us?" For the sea was growing more and more turbulent. 12 Jonah said to them, "Pick me up and throw me into the sea, that it may quiet down for you; since I know it is because of me that this violent storm has come upon you." 13 Still the men rowed hard to regain the land, but they could not, for the sea grew ever more turbulent. 14 3 Then they cried to the LORD: "We beseech you, O LORD, let us not perish for taking this man's life; do not charge us with shedding innocent blood, for you, LORD, have done as you saw fit." 15 Then they took Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea's raging abated. 16 Struck with great fear of the LORD, the men offered sacrifice and made vows to him.
Chapter 2
1 But the LORD sent a large fish, that swallowed Jonah; and he remained in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. 2 From the belly of the fish Jonah said this prayer to the LORD, his God: 3 Out of my distress I called to the LORD, and he answered me; From the midst of the nether world I cried for help, and you heard my voice. 4 For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the sea, and the flood enveloped me; All your breakers and your billows passed over me. 5 Then I said, "I am banished from your sight! yet would I again look upon your holy temple." 6 The waters swirled about me, threatening my life; the abyss enveloped me; seaweed clung about my head. 7 Down I went to the roots of the mountains; the bars of the nether world were closing behind me forever, But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD, my God. 8 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; My prayer reached you in your holy temple. 9 Those who worship vain idols forsake their source of mercy. 10 But I, with resounding praise, will sacrifice to you; What I have vowed I will pay: deliverance is from the LORD. 11 Then the LORD commanded the fish to spew Jonah upon the shore.
Chapter 3
1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 2 "Set out for the great city of Nineveh, and announce to it the message that I will tell you." 3 So Jonah made ready and went to Nineveh, according to the LORD'S bidding. Now Nineveh was an enormously large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 1 Jonah began his journey through the city, and had gone but a single day's walk announcing, "Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed," 5 when the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in the ashes. 7 Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh, by decree of the king and his nobles: "Neither man nor beast, neither cattle nor sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water. 8 2 Man and beast shall be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; every man shall turn from his evil way and from the violence he has in hand. 9 Who knows, God may relent and forgive, and withhold his blazing wrath, so that we shall not perish." 10 When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.
Chapter 4
1 1 But this was greatly displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry. 2 "I beseech you, LORD," he prayed, "is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? This is why I fled at first to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger, rich in clemency, loathe to punish. 3 And now, LORD, please take my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live." 4 But the LORD asked, "Have you reason to be angry?" 5 Jonah then left the city for a place to the east of it, where he built himself a hut and waited under it in the shade, to see what would happen to the city. 6 2 And when the LORD God provided a gourd plant, that grew up over Jonah's head, giving shade that relieved him of any discomfort, Jonah was very happy over the plant. 7 But the next morning at dawn God sent a worm which attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8 And when the sun arose, God sent a burning east wind; and the sun beat upon Jonah's head till he became faint. Then he asked for death, saying, "I would be better off dead than alive." 9 But God said to Jonah, "Have you reason to be angry over the plant?" "I have reason to be angry," Jonah answered, "angry enough to die." 10 3 Then the LORD said, "You are concerned over the plant which cost you no labor and which you did not raise; it came up in one night and in one night it perished. 11 And should I not be concerned over Nineveh, the great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot distinguish their right hand from their left, not to mention the many cattle?"
New American Bible Copyright © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
USCCB Home Page New American Bible Home Page
New American Bible United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000 December 09, 2002 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops


text:
The man Lying in your way on route 7 faces the player, and he probably shouldnt.
Prof.'s Aide on Route 2 (in one of the housey things) says Gaught instead of Caught. Also the grammar in that sentence is a bit weird, perhaps take out the 'for'.
Underground Pathway:
Please please please change this somehow. Having a cave that anyone can wonder into (and I could see perfectly clear without flash after going down the ladder, is that right?) a cave with lv 16+ pokemon. Especially not 16+ pokemon which have a massive advantage on you. Perhaps a warning of extremely strong digletts or something... a general blockage would be my personal favourite ><.
~Edit I have realised there is actually a 'Cut' tree out of place there, and if its properly placed the cave cannot be entered!
The first Vantrek Gym Leaders pokemon are lv 5 and 6. Personally I think the Gym Leaders pokemon should be significantly better than the normal trainers in his Gym. Since one has a lv 7 (an Electrike I think?) perhaps the Gym Leader could be boosted to lvs 8-10.
Another reason I ask for this is because a trainer on route 2 technically has more levels with a lv 5 Nido and lv 7 Murkrow :). Perhaps a rejig of trainer's pokemon? (Although I appriciate thats a lot of work).
Not sure if its an Error error:
The woman between town and Route 2 mentions Golden Pokemon centres - is this yet to be implimented?
Ok I'm done :D Further great Mapping on Route 2 / Salen town :), and I love that I could catch a Skitty nice and early :3


text:
USDA Gardens Aren't Actually Planned
Thanks to reader Jon Anderson for pointing me in the direction of some more disturbing information about the new gardens at USDA offices announced recently by Tom Vilsack and Michelle Obama. I wrote about how the gardens, though organized by the Department of Agriculture, won't actually have any food plants in them. According to Obama Foodorama, Secretary Vilsack's staff has heard the public uproar about this, and arranged to recreate history, rewriting Vilsack's comments from the garden announcement to make it seem that Vilsack intended to have vegetables in the new gardens all along.
Whether these gardens actually ever get planted, however, is in serious doubt. It seems that there is no actual budget for the gardens, and there are no actual plans developed for the gardens outside the USDA headquarters or its offices elsewhere around the world. Secretary Vilsack's idea seems to have been to announce that gardens would be made, and then, somehow, without any planning or purchasing of plants or seeds, the gardens would just appear.
This incident is worrying on a larger scale than just the gardens themselves. If the Secretary of Agriculture can't even organize the planting of a vegetable garden, then how can he reasonably lead an organization with responsibility for an entire nation's food policy?
It's not just a Vilsack problem, of course. It's an Obama problem. There's still no response from the Obama White House to the Eat The View campaign to establish a vegetable garden on the White House lawn.


text:
NOLA JamieModel Female New Orleans, Louisiana, US
My MM URL: http://www.modelmayhem.com/vilecharm
Mayhem # 34278
About MeHello! :)
To all of the photographers, MUAs, hair stylists, wardrobe stylists, magazine editors, designers, and art directors: I have been so fortunate to work with all of you during my time in the fashion world and am so grateful for the many opportunities I have been afforded. There is so much inspiration and incredible talent in NOLA - THANK YOU for taking a chance on me!
I'm eager to collaborate with exceptionally talented people! Photographers please send me a message with shoot concepts, dates, times, locations. I also welcome MUAs, wardrobe stylists, designers, etc., to contact me with any ideas or photographer recommendations.
****I am currently only participating in submission shoots and paid shoots - My time is precious and I don't have much of it to spare at the moment, so I'm limiting my work to that which I feel will be an asset to my portfolio. HOWEVER, I love cool and unique ideas! - Feel free to pitch me an idea and we might be able to work out a TFP shoot.****
Commercial Print
I am not interested in promotional work, sorry!
My heritage is Romanian, Spanish, and Austrian - I don't consider myself to be beautiful or even very pretty. I like to think of myself as unique looking and hopefully also memorable.
- Please give me at least 2 weeks notice for a shoot so that I can arrange for time off if necessary. Best days to shoot are Tuesdays & Wednesdays!
- My transportation is very limited, so unfortunately I'm not really able to travel.
- I always take the time to view portfolios of all people I add to my model mayhem, whether you add me or I add you. I really enjoy leaving positive feedback! :) I don't expect the same in return, but I do appreciate any comments left for me - Thank you!
I look forward to working with passionate and creative people!
Have you worked with NOLA Jamie? Add Credits for NOLA Jamie! >>
Credit NotesPrint and runway work upon request.
Loading Content


text: I had my car in getting its Quattro oil change and they ran a diagnostic on it - i got a note back when the oil chnage was done saying that there may be a fault with an exhaust gas pressure sensor but they would need to run another diagnostic to confirm @ £58 + VAT. I have since been using the car and it now has an intermitent fault that it starts to run rough and lose power for short periods of time - Audi saying this is the pressure sensor failing - never happened before it went in. No they want £300 to do the job - Part is £42.11. 2.5 hrs to do job £85.00per hr + vat += £299.17 Can i get this done cheaper at another garage or am i better of getting the part and then asking a small independant gargae to fit it?? The car is out of warranty anyway so why stick with them? Thoughts welcomed.


text:
School of the Environment Spring Speakers Series:
Visualizations & Simulations to Support
Environmental Decision Making
This Spring, join as as we explore how visualizations and simulations can help aid in environmental decision making. All events are FREE and open to the public. Listed under ESR 607 ,ESM 407/507, & Geog 407/507
When: Thursdays 4-5:15 p.m., April 5-June 7
Where: Portland State University, Cramer Hall 371, Portland, OR
April 26, 2012: Robert Pahle
Senior Sustainability Scientist, Global Institute of Sustainability
ASU's Decision Theater – Enabling Collaboration and Decision Making
How will we explore and analyze the complex systems that are being researched today and in the future? How will we collaborate on these problem sets in the future and how will we make the gained insights relevant to decision makers? One crucial part to answer these questions are computational models and associated visualizations that allow the study of those complex systems which are otherwise difficult to comprehend or impossible to experiment with. This presentation will introduce ASU's Decision Theater and give examples of its work to address the questions above.


text:
Contact us 24/7: +1 877 678 9627
View product details
Zoom In
Need a second opinion? Ask your personal shopper:
Need a second opinion? Ask your personal shopper:
GET EXPERT ADVICE Need a second opinion? Ask your personal shopper:
- - Fits true to size, take your normal size
- - Tailored for a close fit, use the belt to pull it in at the waist
- - Structured non-stretchy fabric
- - Model is 177cm/ 5'10" and is wearing a UK size 8
Burberry London reworks its iconic trench with heavyweight black shearling. The precisely tailored shape is exceptionally flattering - cinch your waist with the included belt, adding ankle boots and a clean tote to finish.
Shown here with: Isabel Marant top, Maison Martin Margiela rings, Donna Karan skirt, Falke tights, Jimmy Choo boots, Mulberry bag.
- - Black shearling
- - Wide shearling collar, buttoned tabs at cuffs, belt loops, removable buckle-fastening belt, buttoned flap pockets, leather trims (Lamb)
- - Button fastenings through double-breasted front
- - 100% shearling (Lamb)
- - Specialist clean
Product Code: 433811
Shop more:
For alternative suggestions, contact our Fashion Consultants
Help & Advice
Product Code: 433811


text:
'Neighbors' Unseats 'Amazing Spider-Man 2' From Box Office Throne
- Mon May 12, 2014, 12:29 AM GMT
The web-slinging superhero movie took in almost $20 million less than the low-budget R-rated comedy.READ MORE
The film, a remake of District B13 (Banlieue 13), features a script by Luc Besson, who co-wrote the original, and Robert Mark Kamen. The storyline follows an undercover detective (Paul Walker) traversing a deadly ghetto nicknamed "Brick Mansions" to uncover a WMD stolen by a vicious drug dealer (RZA).
The web-slinging superhero movie took in almost $20 million less than the low-budget R-rated comedy.READ MORE
The web-slinging superhero film nabbed an impressive number that landed it at number two as 2014's biggest domestic opener.READ MORE
The late 'Fast and Furious' star plays a cop who seeks revenge for the death of his father.READ MORE
Walker plays an undercover cop who reluctantly works with an ex-con to catch a dangerous drug kingpin.READ MORE
The late 'Fast and Furious' actor plays an undercover cop to stop a drug kingpin from destroying the city of Detroit.READ MORE
The 'District 13' remake will open in the United States on April 25 against 'Walk of Shame' and 'The Other Woman'.READ MORE