Delhi High Court
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs Darsh Digital Network Pvt Ltd on 8 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 8th March, 2018.
+ CS(COMM) 173/2018 & IAs No.11660/2017 (u/O XV-A CPC),
3838/2014 (u/O XXXIX R-2A CPC) & 23764/2014 (u/O VII R-1
CPC)
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Mr. K.K. Khetan
and Ms. Mrinali Menon, Advs.
Versus
DARSH DIGITAL NETWORK PVT LTD ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. IA No.23764/2014 of the plaintiff for change of name of the plaintiff
from Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. to Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
is allowed and disposed of.
2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction
restraining the sole defendant, Darsh Digital Network Pvt. Ltd., a Multi-
System Operator (MSO) within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Cable
Television Networks Rules, 1994, from infringing the copyright of the
plaintiff in certain musical and literary works and for ancillary reliefs of
rendition of accounts and delivery.
3. The suit was entertained and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 14th
August, 2012, the defendant restrained from engaging in or authorising the
recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance/communication to
CS(COMM) 173/2018 Page 1 of 5
the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound
recordings and/or literary works and/or musical works or other works or part
thereof owned by the plaintiff, without obtaining a prior licence from the
plaintiff. This order was confirmed on 8th February, 2013.
4. The defendant contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues are framed on 10th January, 2014:
"(i) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11(a) CPC? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is barred under Section 33 of the
Copyright Act, 1957? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of copyright in its
repertoire of works including sound recordings,
cinematograph films and underlying musical and literary
works? If so, to what effect? OPP
(iv) Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's
copyright in sound recordings, literary works and/or
musical works and cinematograph films by
broadcasting/communicating to the public the said works
on programmes broadcasted on its cable network channel
without a license? If so, to what effect? OPP
(v) If the answer to issue No.(ii) is in negative and issue
Nos.3 and 4 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is
entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages? If so, at what
rate and what quantum? OPP
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on damages? If
so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(viii) Relief."
CS(COMM) 173/2018 Page 2 of 5
5. The parties have led their respective evidence and the suit is ripe for
final hearing.
6. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant, the defence to the
suit.
7. The counsel for the defendant states that the defendant, at the time of
institution of the suit, was a Local Cable Operator (LCO) but is now an MSO
and only supplies bandwidth/frequency to the other cable TV operators and
the defendant has not violated the copyright of the plaintiff and it is the cable
TV operators, with whom the defendant has agreements, who have on their
own broadcasted the works aforesaid in which the plaintiff has a copyright
and the defendant is thus not liable for any damages.
8. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant, whether the
defendant in view of the statement made today, has any objection to
suffering a decree for permanent injunction as claimed by the plaintiff in
prayer paragraph 38(i) of the plaint dated 7th August, 2012.
9. The counsel for the defendant states that he has no objection.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the very statement by the
counsel for the defendant today, of the defendant at the time of institution of
the suit being an LCO, falsifies the defence argued. It is contended, that the
plaintiff in its evidence has proved screen shots of the broadcast by the cable
TV operators with whom the defendant has agreements and which broadcast
shows the logo of the defendant on the works of the plaintiff being
broadcasted. It is stated that the same proves that the broadcast of the works
in infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff is through the
bandwidth/frequency supplied by the defendant to the cable TV operators
CS(COMM) 173/2018 Page 3 of 5
with whom the defendant has a contract as else the logo of the defendant
could not have appeared as is visible in the screen shots. It is yet further
contended that the defendant is also in violation of the interim order in this
suit and qua which IA No.3838/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is pending and in response to which the
defendant has taken a stand of the defendant having informed its employees
to, in future, not broadcast the works in which the plaintiff has a copyright,
through the bandwidth/frequency transmitted by the defendant. It is thus
contended that the defendant has admitted the violation.
11. It is also informed that the defendant has led no evidence to the
contrary.
12. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant, whether the
defendant has led any evidence explaining the presence of the logo of the
defendant in the broadcast if done by the cable TV operators having
agreements with the defendant themselves.
13. The counsel for the defendant states that no such evidence has been
led.
14. The counsel for the defendant at this stage also states that the
defendant, in addition to suffering a decree for permanent injunction, will
also pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff.
15. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff would be agreeable
thereto, subject to the defendant, besides suffering a decree, also give
undertaking to this Court to pay the said sum of Rs.5 lakhs and the costs of
the suit.
CS(COMM) 173/2018 Page 4 of 5
16. The counsel for the defendant states that he, on behalf of the defendant
and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Director of the defendant, gives an undertaking to
this Court to pay the sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff through counsel on or
before 10th April, 2018 along with consolidated costs of Rs.1 lakh.
17. The undertaking aforesaid is accepted and the defendant and its
Directors including Mr. Sushil Kumar are ordered to be bound therewith and
cautioned through counsel of consequences of breach of undertaking given
to the Court.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the need to return issue-wise findings is not
felt.
19. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant (i) of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 38(i)
of the plaint dated 7th August, 2012; (ii) of recovery of Rs.5 lakhs by way of
compensation/damages; and, (iii) of consolidated costs of Rs.1 lakh.
20. It is made clear that in the event of breach by the defendant and its
Directors including Mr. Sushil Kumar of the undertaking furnished to the
Court, the plaintiff, besides, proceeding against the defendant and its
Directors including Mr. Sushil Kumar therefor, shall also be entitled to
immediately execute the decree.
Decree sheet be drawn up.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MARCH 08, 2018
bs
