$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 12.5.2017
Judgment delivered on : 16.5.2017
+ CS(OS) 1882/2014 & I.A. No.12222/2016
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. K.K. Khetan and Ms.Prachi
Aggarwal, Advocates.
versus
M/S NEO NEWS NETWORK & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing his copyright besides delivery up, rendition of accounts and damages.
2 The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, is one of the largest and most reputed music company in the country and is owner of a large repertoire of copyrighted works comprising of cinematographic films, CS(OS) No.1882/2014 Page 1 of 5 sound recordings etc. operating under the brand name T-SERIES. Plaintiff has acquired a copyright in all such literary, musical and other works which it commissions and manages, through assignments from authors or other prior owners of the copyright in the same. Plaintiff's business also includes giving of licence for use of its copyrighted works to various organizations such as broadcasting organizations, television channels, FM radio stations etc.
3 The defendant No.1, M/S Neo News Network, is a multi system operator providing cable television services under the logo 'IVERSE CINEMA & IVERSE BHAKTI' to various subscribers majorly in Uttar Pradesh and defendant No. 2, Mr. Kailash Gupta is responsible for the operations and management of the channels of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff first came to know about the infringement of its copyright work by the defendants in April, 2014 where in the course of a random monitoring of the defendants' channels on a sample basis, it was found that sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to the plaintiff's repertoire were being communicated to the public without the requisite licence or permission. CD/DVD recordings of these infringing broadcasts were made on April 24, 2014 under the plaintiff's instructions. CS(OS) No.1882/2014 Page 2 of 5 Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 13.5.2014, which notice was returned as unserved. Accordingly, the plaintiff issued another legal notice dated 30.5.2014 to which the defendants chose not to reply. Present suit was accordingly filed.
4 On 06.08.2014, ex parte interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance/communication to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recordings, literary works (lyrics) and musical works (musical composition) or other work owned by the plaintiff without any license. Summons of the suit were issued. The defendants entered appearance, however chose not to appear henceforth and were proceeded ex-parte on 18.05.2015. The ex-parte interim injunction was also made absolute.
5 Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1 (Deputy General Manager of the plaintiff) has been filed. PW-1 has reiterated all the averments made in the plaint and has proved various assignment deeds/license agreement exhibited as PW-1/6 illustrating the plaintiff as the exclusive copyright owner in those works. The investigator's affidavit (appointed by the plaintiff) along with the corresponding CD recording has CS(OS) No.1882/2014 Page 3 of 5 been proved in the testimony of PW-2 and the requisite documents have been exhibited as PW-2/1 to PW-2/2. The CD recording has been proved as Ex. PW-2/3 to Ex.PW-2/4.
6 This Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case. In view of the testimony of the witnesses of the plaintiff i.e. both PW-1 and PW-2 as also documentary evidence adduced and proved in the Court the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their officers, servants, agents and representatives etc. from recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance/communication to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recordings, literary works (lyrics) and musical works (musical composition) or other work owned by the plaintiff without any license.
7 The plaintiff has also claimed damages. On affidavit, it has been stated that the defendants have committed continuous breach of the plaintiff's copyright without paying any licence fee which was due to the plaintiff. Compensatory damages as also punitive damages have been claimed since the acts of the defendants not only pose a grave threat to the CS(OS) No.1882/2014 Page 4 of 5 entire creative business of the plaintiff, but also affect the livelihood of many creative artists. The business of the plaintiff has also been affected. Further contention being that in similar cases, the plaintiff has been granted the relief of damages. The plaintiff has thus also made out a case for entitlement of damages and is awarded damages quantified at Rs.21 lacs. Cost of the suit also be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record room.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 16, 2017 CS(OS) No.1882/2014 Page 5 of 5