Super Cassettes Industries Ltd vs M/S Neo News Network & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2444 Del

$~
*      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,

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.

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

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

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