Madras High Court
The Indian Performing Rights Society ... vs Mr.K.Murali on 21 April, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S.No.723 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.S.No.723 of 2019
and A.Nos.1832 & 1833 of 2023
The Indian Performing Rights Society Limited,
Represented by its Area General Manager,
N.J.Venkataraman,
Flat No.D-1, Second Floor,
Parsn Paradise Residential Apartments,
109, G N Chetty Road, T Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017. ... Plaintiff
-vs-
1.Mr.K.Murali,
Proprietor – Mouna Raagam Orchestra,
13/7, First Floor,
Bagirathi Ammal Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
Email: [email protected]
(Amended Plaint as per order dated 04.08.2023 in A.No.4019 of 2023)
2.M/s.Om Shakthi Travels Private Limited,
S1, Kurian Complex 19,
Railway Colony 1 Street,
Chennai 600 029.
Email: [email protected]
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
C.S.No.723 of 2019
3.Haddown Country Club Private Limited,
No.6, Kushkumar Road, Subba Road Avenue,
Nungambakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600 034.
Email: [email protected] ... Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules Read With Order VII Rule 1, CPC and Sections 13, 14, 51, 55 and 62
of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the
following terms:-
(a) A Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and
their directors, proprietors, partners, principal officers, servants, agents,
assigns and representative and all others acting for and on their behalf from
either engaging in themselves or authorising, the public performance /
communication to the public, of the Plaintiff's repertoire of literary and
musical works, in any form or manner whatsoever, including as part of
sound recordings, or doing any other act amounting to an infringement of
the Plaintiff's copyright in the said works, without a license from the
Plaintiff;
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
C.S.No.723 of 2019
(b) A Decree of Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from
publicly performing and / or communicating to the public works created by
the author members of the Plaintiff without paying the Authors Statutory
Royalty to the Plaintiff;
(c) A Decree of Rendition of Accounts of Profit illegally earned by
the Defendants on account of the Defendants' infringing activities in
violation of the Plaintiffs' copyright through the unauthorised utilization and
exploitation, by way of public performance and / or communication to the
public, of the underlying literary and musical works belonging to the
Plaintiff's repertoire, or in any other manner whatsoever;
(d) A direction to the Defendants to inform / intimate the Plaintiff
about the works intended to be communicated to the public through live
performances / recorded music, one week prior to the date of any upcoming
event. Subsequently, the person / hirer shall furnish a written request and
obtain permission to publicly perform / communicate to the public, the
literary and musical works belonging to the Plaintiff's repertoire;
(e) A Decree for Damages of Rs.2,00,05,000/- to be passed in favour
of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants including compensatory / actual
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
C.S.No.723 of 2019
damages and exemplary / punitive damages payable to the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff reserves its right to claim additional damages as and when these are
computed and hereby undertakes to pay additional court fees as and when
directed. This claim is without prejudice to the Plaintiff's contention that
the damage being caused by the Defendants is not compensable in monetary
terms;
(f) An order for Costs of these proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendants.
For Plaintiff : Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, K.Nithyavendan
for M/s.GMS Law Associates
For Defendants : Mr.D.Murugan for D1
D2 – Served on 04.01.2020
D3 – Served on 22.01.2020
**********
JUDGMENT
By this suit, the plaintiff has prayed for injunctive relief to restrain the
defendants from conducting public performances of the plaintiff's repertoire
of literary and musical works without obtaining a license from the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
and without paying the author's statutory royalty to the plaintiff. In
addition, rendition of accounts followed by a decree of profits and damages
of Rs.1 crore have also been prayed for.
2. Suit summons was served on the first defendant on 21.08.2023.
The first defendant failed to enter appearance in person or through counsel
and, therefore, did not file a written statement. Consequently, the first
defendant was set ex parte by order dated 05.09.2023. Suit summons was
served on the second and third defendants on 04.01.2020 and 22.01.2020,
respectively. Since the said defendants also failed to file their written
statements, by order dated 30.07.2021, the right of all the defendants to file
written statements was forfeited. Defendants 2 and 3 remained
unrepresented thereafter. Even today, the said defendants are
unrepresented. In view thereof, the second and third defendants are also set
ex parte.
3. By order dated 25.08.2021, the matter was posted before the
Additional Master No.I for recording evidence. Pursuant thereto, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
plaintiff examined four witnesses. Ms.Sheetal D.Madnani was examined as
P.W.1. In course of her examination-in-chief, 40 documents were exhibited
as Exs.P1 to P40. Mr.K.Prabhu, Licensing Executive of the plaintiff, was
examined as P.W.2. In course of his examination-in-chief, two documents
were marked as Exs.P41 and P42. Mr.Pawankumar Ramesh Chandar
Gupta, the Assistant Manager, Distribution Department of the plaintiff, was
examined as P.W.3. In course of his examination-in-chief, three documents
were exhibited as Exs.P43 and P44. Mr.N.J.Venkataraman, Area Manager
of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.4. In course of his examination-in-
chief, Exs.P45 to P59 were exhibited. Although the second and third
defendants had not been set ex parte at that juncture, they did not contest
the proceedings or cross examine any of the witnesses. As stated earlier, as
regards the first defendant, the said defendant was set ex parte on
05.09.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant
conducted about four events at which public performances of copyrighted
material took place without obtaining licenses from the plaintiff and without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
paying royalty. He referred to the events described at paragraphs 31 to 40
of the plaint. As regards the event organized by the first and second
defendants at Hosur Mela Ground under the title “Paatu Thalaivan Paadinal
Musical Programme”, learned counsel submitted that evidence was adduced
by the plaintiff through P.W.2. In particular, he referred to the proof
affidavit of K.Prabhu and the ticket exhibited under Ex.P41. He also
referred to the evidence of P.W.3 in this regard. With particular reference to
paragraphs 4 to 6 of such proof affidavit, learned counsel submits that the
authors and publishers of the songs performed at the event are members of
the plaintiff.
5. By referring to Exs.P39 and P40, he also submits that notices were
issued by the plaintiff before the suit was instituted, including by way of a
lawyer's notice.
6. The plaintiff is a copyright society registered with the Central
Government. In terms of Sections 18, 19 and 33 of the Copyright Act,
1957, copyright societies are permitted to grant licenses and collect royalty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
on behalf of their members. In the plaint, the plaintiff has referred to four
events that were organized by the first defendant. The fourth of these events
is the event at Hosur Mela Ground. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3
clearly establish that the songs performed at this event were published by
members of the plaintiff society.
7. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff, especially in the factual
context of no contra evidence being adduced by the defendants, leads to the
conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief claimed in the
suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to rendition of accounts and a decree of
profits in terms thereof. However, while the suit was pending, the first
defendant agreed to settle the suit claim by paying a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
with GST thereon. Out of this sum, only a sum of about Rs.9,90,000/- was
paid. Since the first defendant had repeatedly violated undertakings given
to this Court in this regard, by order dated 10.03.2025, the plaintiff was
directed to give credit to amounts received until date and prosecute the suit
on merits. At the hearing today, although the first defendant remains ex
parte, learned counsel for the first defendant submitted that the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
defendant would pay the outstanding amounts in terms of the settlement on
or before 30.06.2025. In view of this submission, in the interest of justice,
the decree in relation to rendition of accounts will come into effect on
01.07.2025, if the amount outstanding is not from and out of the above
mentioned sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is not paid. If paid, such payment shall be
treated as discharge of the obligation and the decree for rendition of
accounts and payment in terms thereof shall not come into effect.
8. As the successful party, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs. The
plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,04,125/- as court fee. The plaintiff is
entitled to this sum along with reasonable lawyer's fees and costs.
Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
plaintiff as costs.
9. By alleging wilful disobedience of orders of interim injunction, the
plaintiff had filed A.Nos.1832 & 1833 of 2023. Since the permanent
injunctive relief and rendition of accounts are being granted under this
judgment, separate orders are not being passed in the said applications and
the said applications are hereby closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
10. In the result, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d)
of paragraph 61 of the plaint. As regards prayer (c) of paragraph 61, if the
the first defendant pays amounts outstanding as per the statement recorded
earlier prior to 01.07.2025, there shall be no decree. Otherwise, the decree
in respect of prayer (c) of paragraph 61 shall come into operation on
01.07.2025. The defendants are further directed to pay a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.
21.04.2025
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Plaintiff's witnesses:
P.W.1 – Ms.Sheetal D.Madnani
P.W.2 – Mr.K.Prabhu
P.W.3 – Mr.Pawan Kumar Ramesh Chandar Gupta
P.W.4 – Mr.N.J.Venkataraman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P1 Certified true copy of the board resolution dated 28.09.2018.
Ex.P2 Certified copy of the certificate of incorporation dated
23.08.1969.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the Memorandum of Association.
Ex.P4 Certified copy of the Articles of Association.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of plaintiff's copyright society registration
certificate dated 27.03.1996.
Ex.P6 Certified copy of the conditional registration certificate dated
28.11.2017.
Ex.P7 Certified copy of the registration certificate dated 08.06.2018.
Ex.P8 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by G.K.Venkatesh
in favour of plaintiff dated 27.01.1972. (Compared with original
and returned the original)
Ex.P9 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Kanadhasan in
favour of plaintiff dated 04.02.1972. (Compared with original
and returned the original)
Ex.P10 Photocopy of the assignment deed by Vaalee in favour of
plaintiff dated 04.02.1972. (Compared with original and
returned the original)
Ex.P11 Photocopy of the assignment deed by R.N.Jayagopal in favour of
plaintiff dated 26.03.1972. (Compared with original and
returned the original)
Ex.P12 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Chi Udaya,
Shankar in favour of plaintiff dated 31.03.1972. (Compared
with original and returned the original)
Ex.P13 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Gangai Amaren
in favour of plaintiff dated 21.07.1979. (Compared with original
and returned the original)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P14 Photocopy of the Author / Composer assignment deed dated
10.02.2018. (Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P15 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Ramasamy
Thevar Vairamuthu in favour of the plaintiff dated 18.07.1987.
(Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P16 Photocopies of the assignment deed dated 22.05.2017 and the
amendment agreement dated 22.05.2017 by SAREGAMA India
Ltd., in favour of plaintiff. (Compared with original and
returned the original)
Ex.P17 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by The Master
Recording Company in favour of plaintiff dated 10.05.1994.
(Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P18 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Hindusthan
Music Publishing Private Limited in favour of plaintiff dated
15.01.1998. (Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P19 Photocopy of the assignment deed dated 06.04.2018 by
Hindustan Music Publishing Pvt., Ltd., in favour of plaintiff.
(Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P20 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Star Music in
favour of plaintiff dated 29.06.2000. (Compared with original
and returned the original)
Ex.P21 Photocopy of the assignment deed dated 12.01.2018 by Star
Music in favour of plaintiff. (Compared with original and
returned the original)
Ex.P22 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Panchu
Arunachalam in favour of plaintiff dated 20.11.2001.
(Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P23 Photocopy of the assignment deed dated 27.11.2002 by Music
Master Audio Video Manufacturing Pvt., Ltd., in favour of
plaintiff. (Compared with original and returned the original)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P24 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Sree Devi Video
corporation in favour of the plaintiff dated 22.11.2002.
(Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P25 Photocopy of the assignment deed executed by Aditya Music
(India) Pvt. Ltd in favour of plaintiff dated 17.01.2005.
(Compared with original and returned the original)
Ex.P26 Copy of the plaintiff's letter dated 28.08.2018.
Ex.P27 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2018-2019_8328 dated 28.08.2018.
Ex.P28 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2018-2019_8329 dated 28.08.2018.
Ex.P29 Office copy of the legal notice dated 30.08.2018.
Ex.P30 Copy of the plaintiff's letter dated 23.11.2018.
Ex.P31 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2018-2019_10612 dated 23.11.2018.
Ex.P32 Office copy of the legal notice dated 06.12.2018.
Ex.P33 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2018-2019_10826 dated 07.12.2018.
Ex.P34 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2018-2019_14187 dated 07.12.2018.
Ex.P35 Copy of the tax invoice – cum – receipt dated 20.02.2019.
Ex.P36 Copy of the letter dated 24.09.2019.
Ex.P37 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2019-2020_10314 dated 24.09.2019.
Ex.P38 Copy of the royalty (license) fees – estimate bearing number
2019-2020_10312 dated 24.09.2019.
Ex.P39 Copy of the plaintiff's letter dated 30.09.2019.
Ex.P40 Office copy of the legal notice dated 21.10.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P41 The Investigator's affidavit of Mr.K.Prabhu (myself) of the
Plaintiff along with the original ticket dated 12.12.2019.
Ex.P42 The affidavit of Mr.K.Prabhu under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 read with Order XI Sub-Rule 6(3) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 dated 12.12.2019. (The learned
counsel for the plaintiff has stated that since there is no hardware
accompanying this affidavit, it be marked as Investigator's
additional report recording the subsequent events done by the
witness after the event).
Ex.P43 The Investigator's affidavit of Mr.Pawan Kumar Ramesh
Chandra Gupta (myself) dated 12.12.2019.
Ex.P44 Two numbers of CD towards the audio-video recorded during
the event held by D1 (Part 1 and 2) on 10.11.2019 and also word
format along with list of songs contained in two CD's along with
affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P45 Original letter of authority in favour of Mr.N.J.Venkataraman,
the authorised signatory of the plaintiff dated 11.12.2019.
Ex.P46 Printout of the E-mail from Defendant No.1 to plaintiff's counsel
dated 11.09.2018 mentioned in affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P47 Printout of the E-mail sent by the defendant no.1 to plaintiff's
Chennai office dated 06.12.2018 mentioned in affidavit under
Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P48 Printout of the E-mail sent by defendant no.1 to plaintiff's
Chennai office dated 20.12.2018 mentioned in affidavit under
Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P49 Printouts of the E-mails sent by plaintiff's Chennai office to the
defendant no.1 dated 11.02.2019 and 03.05.2019 mentioned in
affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P50 Printout of the E-mail sent by defendant no.1 to plaintiff's
Chennai office dated 07.05.2019 mentioned in affidavit under
Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P51 Printouts of posts from Instagram and Twitter made about the
proposed events dated December 31, 2019 and January 5, 2020
taken printout on 12.10.2019 mentioned in affidavit under
Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P52 Printouts from Bookmyshow website for selling tickets for the
proposed event dated January 5, 2020, taken printout on
12.10.2019 mentioned in affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P53 Printout of Company Master Data of the Defendant no.2
downloaded from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
taken printout on 12.11.2019 mentioned in affidavit under
Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P54 Printouts from the website of the defendant no.3, taken printout
on 12.12.2019 mentioned in affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P55 Printout of Company Master Data of the Defendant no.3
downloaded from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
taken printout on 12.10.2019.
Ex.P56 Printout ticket and booking confirmation ticket towards
attending the event held at Hosur Mela Ground dated 07.11.2019
mentioned in affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P57 Printout of plaintiff's tariff scheme mentioned in affidavit under
Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P58 Printout of list of plaintiff's members dated 12.12.2019
mentioned in affidavit under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P59 The printouts of the relevant webpages from the defendant no.1's
website, taken printout on 12.11.2019 mentioned in affidavit
under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Defendants' witnesses and documents:
-NIL-
21.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
and A.Nos.1832 & 1833 of 2023
21.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:44 pm )
