M/S Phonographic Performance Ltd vs Lizard Lounge & Others
2008 Latest Caselaw 906 Del

           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 02.07.2008

+            IA 2399-2400/2006 in CS(OS) 1774/2005

M/S PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD                             ... Plaintiff

                                       - versus -

LIZARD LOUNGE & OTHERS                                       ... Defendants

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff                  : Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr Advocate with
                                     Mr Pragyan Sharma and Ms Kanika Mehra
For the Defendant No.5             : Mr Naushad Alam
For the Defendant Nos.4 & 9.       : Mr K.K. Sharma
For the Defendant No. 7            : Ms Pratibha M. Singh with Ms Pema Yeshey
For the Defendant Nos.11 &15       : Ms Bimla Sharma
For the Defendant No.13            : Mr D.R. Bhatia

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

      1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? YES

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. As indicated in the order dated 19.03.2008, the counsel

appearing for the defendant No.7 as well as the counsel appearing for

the defendants 4 and 9 had raised the issue of maintainability of the

present suit. The identical issue had been raised in a similar suit filed

by the same plaintiff. Detailed arguments had been addressed in an

application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC [IA No.334/2005] in the said

suit [CS(OS) 1498/2004]. The counsel for the parties are the same and

IA No.2399-2400/06 in CS(OS) 1774/05 Page No.1 of 3 they reiterated the arguments made in that application for the present

suit also.

2. The said IA 334/2005 has been allowed by a detailed

judgment delivered today. The plaint in CS(OS) 1498/2004 has been

rejected. The following two questions had been considered in that

application:-

1. Whether, in view of the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Copyright Act, 1957, a suit for infringement of copyright would be maintainable at the instance of a registered copyright society in the absence of the owner of the copyright?

2. Whether, in view of the provisions of section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957, inasmuch as the owner of the copyright has not been made a party to the present suit, the same would be liable to be rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party ?

By virtue of the judgment in IA 334/2005, in answer to the said

questions, it has been held that the suit at the instance of the registered

copyright society (the plaintiff herein) would not be maintainable. The

reasoning employed in that decision would apply with equal vigour to

the present case. Consequently, the plaint in the present suit is also

liable to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly.

IA No.2399-2400/06 in CS(OS) 1774/05 Page No.2 of 3 All interim orders stand vacated and any other pending

applications also stand disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (JUDGE) July 02, 2008 dutt

IA No.2399-2400/06 in CS(OS) 1774/05 Page No.3 of 3