Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs Mr. Uttam Khan & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4113 Del

*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+                       CS (OS) No. 2378/2007

                                 Reserved on: 27th May, 2009

%                                Decided on: 12th October, 2009

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.           1                    ...Plaintiff
                      Through : Mr. K.K. Khetan, Adv.

                        Versus

Mr. Uttam Khan & Ors.                                      ...Defendants
                   Through       : None

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                                  No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                               No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                          No
   in the Digest?

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order I shall dispose of CS (OS) No. 2378/2007 filed

by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from infringing the plaintiff's copyright and for damages.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has been

engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing audio cassettes,

video cassettes, compact disks, televisions, CD Players, fans, mineral

water and various other products. The plaintiff is the proprietor of T-

Series, which is a household name as regards the music industry in India.

As per the plaintiff, T-Series is solely responsible for the upward rise of

various creative artists, be it in the field of music or television or films.

The plaintiff has listed the names of many artists from all these

industries, submitting that it has made significant contribution to the

cultural wealth of the country.

3. The plaintiff submits that it has Sample Assignment deeds

which are signed by the artists which it relies upon to exploit its

copyrights. It is admittedly only be exploiting these copyrights that the

plaintiff is able to pursue and sustain its creative output and continuous

offering of opportunities. The plaintiff has a copyright licensing program

under its 'T -Series Public Performance License Scheme (TPPL

Scheme)' wherein it routinely grants licenses to restaurants, nightclubs,

hotels, airlines, radio stations, cable TV operators etc for the use of

works in which it has copyright.

4. Defendant no. 1 is the officer in charge of Defendant no. 3,

M/s Maharaja Cable Network, 112/10, Civil Line, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

Defendant no. 2 is believed to be the proprietor of the office of

Defendant no. 3, the same being situated at C-29, Bhagwan Das Road,

C-scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The plaintiff alleges that defendant no. 3

has been exploiting the sound recordings as well as the lyrics, musical

compositions and music videos that are copyrights of the plaintiff and

such unlicensed use of the same on cable television network amounts to

infringement of such copyright. The plaintiff was apprised of the said

situation on October 15, 2007 by its representative who ascertained that

the defendants were exploiting its work. The plaintiff submits that it first

sent a letter dated October 17, 2007 to defendant no. 1 informing him of

its TPPL Scheme, followed by legal notices - all of which the latter did

not acknowledge.

5. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have been regularly

and repeatedly broadcasting the copyrighted work of the plaintiff to

cable subscribers thus breaching the said copyrights and that the

defendants exhibit full intention to continue the afore-said infringement

as they have declined to pay the requisite license fee to the plaintiff. It

has also been submitted that the plaintiff has suffered substantial loss on

account of the defendants' infringing activities, as it partly depends on

the license income which is generated by its copyrighted work. The

defendants' have infringed the exclusive rights of the plaintiff under

Section 14 (a) (iii) and Section 14 (e) (iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

6. It was noted in the Joint Registrar's order dated January 14,

2009 that though defendants no. 1 and 3 were served through courier on

January 2, 2008, they both refused to accept the same. This Court, by

order dated January 16, 2009 observed that despite service of summons,

the defendants neither appeared before the Joint Registrar nor appeared

before the Court. By the said order the defendants were proceeded

against ex-parte and the plaintiff was directed to produce evidence by

way of affidavit within six weeks. Evidence by affidavit of Mr. S.K.

Dutta was filed on March 27, 2009 and his statement was recorded on

April 29, 2009.

7. I have perused the plaintiff's submissions as well as the

evidence on record. Clearly, the plaintiff is a leading name in the

music industry in particular and the entertainment industry in general

with a repertoire of innumerable cinematographic films and sound

recordings. By random monitoring in October 2007, the plaintiff first

came to know of the defendants' activities after which it attempted to

inform the defendants of its licensing scheme. However, the

defendants have ignored all advances, starting from the plaintiff's

letter to this court's summons. The representative of the plaintiff, Mr.

Yogesh Sharma, has filed an affidavit and filed CD's with the court

showing the unlicensed usage of the plaintiff's work by the

defendants. The defendants have been in continued breach of the

plaintiff's copyrights and are seeking to unfairly gain an advantage

over other Cable TV operators who have recognized the plaintiff's

copyrights and have entered into valid public performance license

agreements with the same.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has given up his claim

against defendant no. 2 and an order in this respect has been passed

on 7th October, 2009. I hereby restrain permanently all the other

defendants, their officers, servants, agents and representatives and

anyone acting for or on their behalf from engaging themselves or

authorizing the public performance or communicating to the public or

in any other way exploiting films, sound recordings and literary

works (lyrics) and musical compositions or other work or part thereof

of the plaintiff.

9. The decree be drawn accordingly. The suit as well as the

pending applications are disposed of accordingly.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

October 12, 2009 nn