Madras High Court
The South Indian Music Companies ... vs Mr.Aghit Kukian on 26 August, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Cont.P.Nos. 3238, 3239 and 3380 of 2024
The South Indian Music Companies Association
3rd Floor, Vishesha Home,
47, Ramanujam Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
... Petitioner/Appellant in Cont.P.Nos. 3238 & 3239 of 2024
J.Swaminathan
Secretary
The South Indian Music Companies Association
3rd Floor, Vishesha Home,
47, Ramanujam Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
... Petitioner/Appellant in Cont.P.No. 3380 of 2024
Vs
Mr.Aghit Kukian,
Authorised Signatory
Music Broadcast (P) Ltd.,
Radio City No.117, Thiagaraya Road
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017.
...Respondent/Respondent in Cont.P.No. 3238 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
2
Mr.Prashant G.Ramdass
Authorised Signatory
Entertainment Network India Ltd.,
Raido Mirchi, Fathima Akhtar Court,
453, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018.
...Respondent/Respondent in Cont.P.Nos. 3239 & 3380 of 2024
PRAYER IN CONT.P.NO. 3238 of 2024: Contempt Petition filed under
Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the respondent
for disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.04.2023 in
C.M.A.No. 3490 of 2010.
PRAYER IN CONT.P.NO. 3239 of 2024: Contempt Petition filed under
Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the respondent
for disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.04.2023 in
C.M.A.No. 3491 of 2010.
PRAYER IN CONT.P.NO. 3380 of 2024: Contempt Petition filed under
Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the respondent
for disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.04.2023 in
C.M.A.No. 3492 of 2010.
***
For Petitioner in
all Cont.Ps. : Mr. M.V.Swaroop
For Respondent in
Cont.P.No. 3238/2024 : Mr. N.L.Rajah
Senior Counsel
for M/s. Galdys Daniel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
3
For Respondent in
Cont.P.Nos. 3239 &
3380/2024 : Mr.Masilamani
Senior Counsel
for M/s. King and Partridge
COMMON ORDER
These Contempt Petitions have been filed by the South Indian
Music Companies Association (Cont.P.No. 3238 of 2024 and Cont.P.No.
3239 of 2024) and by J.Swaminthan, Secretary, the South Indian Music
Companies Association (Cont.P.No. 3380 of 2024) under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 seeking to punish the respondents therein
for alleged disobedience of the common Judgment of this Court dated
27.04.2023 in C.M.A.No. 3490 of 2010 (Cont.P.No. 3238 of 2024) and in
C.M.A.No. 3491 of 2010 (Cont.P.No. 3239 of 2024) and in C.M.A.No.
3492 of 2010 (Cont.P.No. 3380 of 2024).
2. All the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals along with several
other Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were taken up together and a common
Judgment was pronounced on 27.04.2023. In all the three Contempt
Petitions, similar grounds had been taken seeking to punish the
respondents therein for alleged contempt of Court by disobedience of the
directions in the said common Judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
3. Arguments on common lines were also advanced in all the three
Contempt Petitions. It is obvious that the issues raised overlapped.
Therefore, a common Order is passed in all the three Contempt Petitions.
4. It must also be stated that J.Swaminathan, who had filed
Contempt Petition No. 3380 of 2024 had also sworn to the affidavits filed
in support of Contempt Petition Nos. 3238 of 2024 and 3239 of 2024,
raising similar grounds. This is also one factor for passing a common
Order in all the Contempt Petitions.
5. Even before narrating the facts, it would only be appropriate to
examine Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Section 11 of
the Contempt of Courts Act is as follows:-
“11. Power of High Court to try offences
committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.—A
High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try
a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it,
whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed
within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and
whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is
within or outside such limits. ”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
6. It is to be noted that the Contempt of Courts Act was enacted by
the Parliament to define and limit the powers of the Courts in punishing
alleged contempts of courts and to regulate their procedure. The Act had
not been enacted to expand the powers of the Courts in punishing alleged
contempts of Courts.
7. It is also to be noted that this jurisdiction to punish for contempt
creeps into the fundamental right of a citizen to personal liberty and
freedom of expression. The Courts must also examine whether there has
been just disobedience of the order or whether there was a deliberate
intent to disobey the order.
8. Civil Contempt had been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act
as follows:-
“2.(b) “civil contempt” means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or wilful
breach of an undertaking given to a court; ”
9. The central word in the above definition is “ Wilful”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
disobedience to any Judgment or “Wilful” breach of an undertaking given
to the Court”. It therefore become expedient on the part of this Court to
examine whether the conduct of the respondents herein as alleged by the
petitioners tantamounts to “wilful disobedience” of any of the directions
in the common Judgment dated 27.04.2023 in the aforementioned Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals.
10. In the affidavits filed in support of the three petitions, which
affidavits are practically similar, the petitioner had stated that the
respondents in each one of the three Contempt Petitions had entered into
license agreements with the members of the petitioner Association
whereby the respondents had obtained a non – exclusive license to
broadcast the repertoire of sound recordings as set out in the schedules to
the said agreements. It had been contended that by the said agreement, the
parties had agreed that royalty should be paid on needle per hour rate.
However, the Copy Right Board which was exercising the jurisdiction
under the Copy Right Act 1957 prior to its amendment, had passed an
order dated 25.08.2010 holding that the royalties were to be paid on the
net advertisement revenue earned by the radio stations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
11. It is to be noted and pointed out that the three petitioners herein
were not parties to the proceedings before the Copy Right Board. But
however, their grievance was that the Copy Right Board made its order
applicable to the members of the petitioner Association also.
12. This necessitated the petitioners to file the aforementioned
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before this Court. By a common Judgment
dated 27.04.2023, the Appeals were allowed and it was held that the order
dated 25.08.2010 would not bind the contempt petitioners or its members.
13. The respondents have challenged that common Judgment dated
27.04.2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. An order had been passed
on 15.05.2023 stating that any payment made by the appellants
therein/respondents in the Contempt Petitions shall abide by the final
result of the Special Leave Petitions.
14. It had therefore been contended by the petitioners that stay had
not been granted on that portion of the common Judgment dated
27.04.2023. It has thus been contended that the respondents should make
payments of royalties to the members of the petitioner association on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
rates prescribed in the respective individual agreements.
15. It had been further stated that the individual members of the
petitioner Association had addressed the respondents in writing seeking
the log sheet / play list for the period between August 2010 and May 2020
to ascertain the dues payable by the respondents.
16. It had been asserted that in the common Judgment in the
Appeals, this Court had clearly declared that the directions issued were
applicable to all the members of the petitioner Association.
17. The petitioners then issued a contempt notice on 27.03.2024
calling upon the respondents to furnish a log of the music played by all
radio stations run by the respondents for the period from August 2010 to
December 2020 and to calculate the royalty payable at needle per hour rate
as stipulated in the individual agreements and furnish such calculation and
pay the individual members, the sums as calculated above in compliance
with the directions of this Court in the common Judgment dated
27.04.2023 in the aforementioned Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and pay
costs of Rs.1,00,000/- for the contempt notice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
18. It had been sated that the respondents did not comply with the
terms of the Judgment nor replied to the notices issued by the petitioners.
It was under those circumstances that the Contempt Petitions have been
filed.
19. Notices had been directed to the respondents and counsels had
also entered appearance.
20. A reply had been filed wherein it had been stated that the
common Judgment of this Court dated 27.04.2023 shall apply only to a
person, who was a party to the Copy Right Board dated 25.08.2010, and
that it was the stand of the petitioners that the order of the Copy Right
Board does not apply to them as they were not parties to the said
proceedings. It had been further stated that the Copy Right Board had
finally decided the rights of the parties. It had been further stated that the
Copy Right License Agreements had been entered into between the copy
right owner and the respondent and not with the petitioner Association.
It had been further stated that the petitioner is not a registered Copy Right
Society under the provisions of the Copy Right Act. It had been further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
stated that the members of the petitioner Association had agreed to be
bound by the order of the Copy Right Board. It had been further stated
that in accordance with the order of the Copy Right Board, the
respondents had paid license fees to the Copy Right owners, which they
had accepted. It had been stated that the modified order in the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals would be applicable only to the parties to the Copy
Right Board and not to the petitioner or to its members. It was therefore
stated that the Contempt Petitions were not maintainable.
21. It had also been stated that the Appeals had been filed before
the Supreme Court against the Common Judgment and the same are
pending. It had been stated that there was no enforceable order or decree
in favour of the petitioners in the Common Judgment dated 27.04.2023. It
had therefore been stated that the Contempt Petitions will have to be
dismissed.
22. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned
counsel for the contempt petitioners in all the three Petitions and by
Mr.G.Masailamani, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in
Cont.P.No. 3239 and 3380 of 2024 and Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior
Counsel for the Contempt Petition No. 3238 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
23. Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners
took the Court through the facts of the case and contended that the
respondents have deliberately disobeyed the directions given by this Court
in the common Judgment dated 27.04.2023. The learned counsel pointed
out that an Appeal had been filed before the Supreme Court but stay had
not been granted. The members of the petitioner Association had
individual agreements with the respondents and initially they were paid
royalties at needle per hour rate but later, the Copy Right Board had
modified the same to net advertisement rate. The petitioner Association
was however not a party before the Copy Right Board, but still the Copy
Right Board had made its order applicable even to the petitioner
Association.
24. It had been contended by the learned counsel that therefore the
petitioner Association had filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before this
Court and this Court had very specifically stated that the order of the Copy
Right Board would not be applicable till the petitioners. The learned
counsel stated that therefore, in accordance with the said finding, the
members of the petitioner Association had been demanding furnishing of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
log statements for the music played in the radio stations of the respondents
but the respondents have not complied with the demand. It had been
contended by the learned counsel that this denial and the refusal to comply
with the directions of this Court were deliberate and therefore, the learned
counsel insisted that the respondents were guilty of contempt and
accordingly, urged that this Court should pass appropriate orders
punishing the respondents for committing contempt of Court.
25. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
in Contempt Petition Nos. 3239 and 3380 of 2024 however seriously
disputed the said contentions. The learned Senior Counsel stated that this
Court in the common Judgment had directed that all parties in the Appeal
should apply for enforcement of the Judgment within a period of four
weeks. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the avenue open to the
petitioners was only to file an execution petition and not a contempt
petition. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the contempt petitions are
not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel stated that a right alone had
been declared by the common Judgment but there has been no
quantification of the amount which the respondent should pay to the
members of the petitioner Association. The learned Senior Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
pointed out Section 75 of the Copy Right Act 1957 and pointed out that
orders for payment of money which had been passed by Registrar and by
the Copy Right Board are executable as a decree. The learned Senior
Counsel stated that when the law provides a particular procedure to be
followed, that procedure alone should be followed and therefore the
contempt petitions would not lie. The learned Senior Counsel therefore
contended that the Contempt Petitions should be dismissed.
26. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in
Contempt Petition No. 3238 of 2024 contended that the petitioner
Association is not a registered society. He pointed out Section 33 of the
Copy Right Act 1957 which provides for the registration of a Copy Right
Society. The locus of the petitioner to maintain the Contempt Petitions
itself is questionable. The learned Senior Counsel argued that notices had
been issued and replies had also been issued clarifying the issues raised.
The learned Senior Counsel very specifically questioned the authority of
the petitioner Association to act on behalf of individual members. The
respondent did not have any agreement with the petitioner Association.
The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the Contempt Petitions
should be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
27. Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel placed strong reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.
158-159 of 2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023, [CEIR LLP
Vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors.]. The learned counsel placed
very specific reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on and from paragraph No. 193.
28. The facts in that particular case was that the original borrower
had availed credit facility from the Bank. A simple mortgage had been
created over a parcel of land measuring 16200 sq. metres at Navi Mumbai.
The borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan. The loan was declared
as a non performing asset. The bank issued demand notice under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for repayment of principal along with interest
and costs. Thereafter, the bank proceeded to take possession of the asset
under the provisions of the Act. A possession notice was issued under
Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and symbolic possession was also
taken.
29. The borrower then filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal assailing the notice under Section
13(2) and under Section 13(4) of the Act. The Bank then had taken a
decision to put the property to auction and issued a notice of sale by
public auction. However, the attempts to bring the property of auction
failed since there were no bids. The borrower then tried to bring the
property on sale and informed that they would be able to obtain a sum of
Rs.91-92 crores and that they would settle the entire outstanding with the
bank. The bank however decided to go for one more auction and issued a
notice on sale. The reserve price was also determined and the terms and
conditions were also stipulated.
30. The borrower then filed the application before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal seeking to amend the pleadings and to also challenge
the auction proceedings. The auction proceedings however was conducted
and the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had submitted a bid
of Rs.105.05 crore. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder and
a sale confirmation letter was issued. The petitioner also deposited the
amounts as required.
31. The borrower then filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
redeem the mortgage by paying a total amount of Rs.123.83 crores.
Though the Debt Recovery Tribunal heard both the Bank and the
borrower, no consequential order was passed. The petitioner who was the
successful bidder deposited the balance sum of the total bid which had
been accepted by the bank. The Debt Recovery Tribunal then reserved
orders on the application to redeem the mortgage. Before the order could
be passed, the borrower went to the High Court and filed a Writ Petition
challenging the measures taken by the Bank. The borrower was under the
impression that the Debt Recovery Tribunal might reject their application
seeking redemption. The borrower however did not challenge the legality
of the auction in the Writ Petition.
32. Before the High Court, the borrower expressed willingness to
pay a total sum of Rs.129 crores to redeem the mortgage. This proposal
was accepted by the Bank. The petitioner then filed an application to get
impleaded in the Writ Petition. By order dated 17.08.2023, the High
Court allowed the Writ Petition and permitted the borrower to redeem the
mortgage. The petitioner then filed Special Leave Petitions before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the final order passed by the High
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
33. In the meanwhile, the borrower had paid the total amount to
redeem the mortgage and the bank also issued a no due certificate. There
was however a second charge over the property which also was released
pursuant to the payment of the borrower. The borrower then entered into
an agreement of assignment of lease hold rights with a third party which
agreement was also registered.
34. The matter then came up before the Supreme Court and was
reserved for Judgment. In the final Judgment dated 21.09.2023, the
appeals filed by the petitioner / successful auction bidder were allowed
and it was held that the High Court had erred in permitting the borrower to
redeem the mortgage.
35. The borrower then filed a Review of the said order. The
petitioner in the meanwhile as the successful auction purchaser had issued
several letters seeking physical possession of the property.
36. The Contempt Petitions were then filed seeking handing over of
physical possession and the original title deeds and annulment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
release deed and the no due certificate and the deed of assignment and to
quash all proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and
DRAT and in the Civil Court. It was under those circumstances that
orders came to be passed in the Contempt Petitions. While passing orders,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-
“193. The Borrower and the Subsequent
Transferee/the alleged contemnors herein placing
reliance on the decision of this Court in Patel Rajnikant
reported in (2008) 14 SCC 561 have contended that in the
absence of any disobedience or wilful breach of a
prohibitory order no contempt could be said to have
been committed. It has been further canvased that this
Court in the Main Appeals never issued any specific
direction either to the Borrower or the Subsequent
Transferee, & therefore no contempt could be said to
have been committed.
194. In Patel Rajnikant (supra) this Court upon
examining Section 2(b) of the Act, 1971 held that to
hold a person guilty of having committed contempt,
there must be a judgment, order, direction etc. by a
court, there must be disobedience of such judgment,
order, direction etc and that such disobedience must be
willful. The relevant provisions read as under:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
“58. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 have also been invoked. Section 2 of the Act is
a definition clause. Clause (a) enacts that contempt of
court means “civil contempt or criminal contempt”.
Clause (b) defines “civil contempt” thus:
“2. (b) ‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience
to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;”
Reading of the above clause makes it clear that
the following conditions must be satisfied before a
person can be held to have committed a civil contempt:
(i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court (or an
undertaking given to a court);
(ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court
(or breach of undertaking given to a court); and
(iii) such disobedience of judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court (or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
breach of undertaking) must be wilful.”
195. However, the subsequent observations made
by this Court in Patel Rajnikant (supra) are significant.
It observed that the court should not hesitate in
wielding the potent weapon of contempt, it is for the
proper administration of justice and to ensure due
compliance with the orders passed by it in order to
uphold and maintain the dignity of courts and majesty
of law. The relevant observations read as under:—
“70. From the above decisions, it is clear that
punishing a person for contempt of court is indeed a
drastic step and normally such action should not be
taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the
power but the duty of the court to uphold and maintain
the dignity of courts and majesty of law which may call
for such extreme step. If for proper administration of
justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders
passed by a court, it is required to take strict view under
the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent
weapon of contempt.”
196. What can be discerned from the above
exposition of law is that any act of disobedience,
defiance, or any attempt to malign the authority of the
court would amount to contempt because they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
undermine the respect and trust that the public reposes
in judicial institutions. The judicial process relies on
the confidence of society, and any act that disrupts or
disrespects this process threatens to erode the
foundation of justice and order.
197. Contempt jurisdiction exists to preserve the
majesty and sanctity of the law. Courts are the
guardians of justice, and their decisions must command
respect and compliance to ensure the proper
functioning of society. When individuals or entities
challenge the authority of courts through wilful
disobedience or obstructive behaviour, they undermine
the rule of law and create the risk of anarchy. Contempt
serves as a mechanism to protect the integrity of the
courts, ensuring that they remain a symbol of fairness,
impartiality, and accountability.
198. When judicial orders are openly flouted or
court proceedings are disrespected, it sends a signal
that the rule of law is ineffective, leading to a loss of
trust in the system. Judicial decisions must remain
unimpaired, free from external pressures, manipulation,
or circumvention. Acts that attempt to mislead the court,
obstruct its functioning or frustrate its decisions distort
the process of justice and would amount to contempt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
199. The contempt jurisdiction of this court
cannot be construed by any formulaic or rigid
approach. Merely because there is no prohibitory
order or no specific direction issued the same would
not mean that the parties cannot be held guilty of
contempt. The Contempt jurisdiction of the court
extends beyond the mere direct disobedience of explicit
orders or prohibitory directions issued by the court.
Even in the absence of such specific mandates, the
deliberate conduct of parties aimed at frustrating
court proceedings or circumventing its eventual
decision may amount to contempt. This is because
such actions strike at the heart of the judicial process,
undermining its authority and obstructing its ability to
deliver justice effectively. The authority of courts must
be respected not only in the letter of their orders but
also in the broader spirit of the proceedings before
them.
200. Any contumacious conduct of the parties to
bypass or nullify the decision of the court or render it
ineffective, or to frustrate the proceedings of the court,
or to enure any undue advantage therefrom would
amount to contempt. Attempts to sidestep the court's
jurisdiction or manipulate the course of litigation
through dishonest or obstructive conduct or malign or
distort the decision of the courts would inevitably
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
tantamount to contempt sans any prohibitory order or
direction to such effect.
201. Thus, the mere conduct of parties aimed at
frustrating the court proceedings or circumventing its
decisions, even without an explicit prohibitory order,
constitutes contempt. Such actions interfere with the
administration of justice, undermine the respect and
authority of the judiciary, and threaten the rule of law.
205. Where a decision is rendered and the
impugned order is set-aside, it behoves any logic that
an express direction to act must be given in respect of
every aspect of the decision. The parties are duty
bound to act in accordance with common sense. It is
axiomatic that a party should obey both the letter and
the spirit of a court order, and it is neither open for the
parties to adopt a myopic and blinkered view of such
decision nor any such interpretation or view that sub-
serves their own interests. It is ultimately the purpose
for which the order was granted that will be the
lodestar in guiding the parties as to the true effect of the
order and determination of the court.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
37. Placing very strong reliance on the observations made, the
learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the conduct of the respondent
was also aimed at mis-interpreting the court's Judgment to circumvent the
decision even though there was no stay was granted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It had been contended that the respondents were
attempting to side step the jurisdiction of the Court.
38. The respondents instead of complying with the directions had
taken upon themselves the power to decide the manner in which the
Judgment of the Court should be dealt with. The learned counsel argued
that the respondents should obey the common Judgment of this Court in
letter and spirit and it was not open to them to interpret it in any other
manner. It was therefore insisted that the Contempt Petitions would lie.
39. On the side of the respondents, reliance had been made to the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 44
[Union of India and Others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others], which was
rendered with respect to acquisition of land in Jammu and Kashmir.
Reliance was placed specifically to paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 which are as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
follows:-
“9. ..........It is not everything said by a Judge
while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The
only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the
principle upon which the case is decided and for this
reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate
from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled
theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic
postulates—(i) findings of material facts, direct and
inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference
which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible
facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable
to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii)
judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A
decision is only an authority for what it actually decides.
What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not
every observation found therein nor what logically
follows from the various observations made in the
judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to
the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved,
since the generality of the expressions which may be
found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole
law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of
the case in which such expressions are to be found. It
would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
here and there from the judgment and to build upon it
because the essence of the decision is its ratio and not
every observation found therein. The enunciation of the
reason or principle on which a question before a court
has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The
concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to
it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a
consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject-
matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law
and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is
only the principle laid down in the judgment that is
binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. A
deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an
argument on a question which arises in the case or is put
in issue may constitute a precedent, no matter for what
reason, and the precedent by long recognition may
mature into rule of stare decisis. It is the rule deductible
from the application of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio
decidendi.
10. Therefore, in order to understand and
appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always
necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which
the decision was given and what was the point which had
to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a
statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment
cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to
employ an intelligent technique in the use of
precedents....”
40. This Court had passed the common Judgment in the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals on 27.04.2023. In the common Judgment, this
Court had observed and recorded the arguments on behalf of the
respondents in paragraph No. 89 which is as follows:-
“89.The learned Senior Counsel also questioned
the locus of SIMCA to maintain the appeals as SIMCA
was also not a Copyright Society, but a Society
registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration
Act. The learned Senior Counsel pointed that ENIL had
individual agreements with the members and those
members had agreed to abide by the order of the
Copyright Board. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel
stated that the argument that the order of the Copyright
Board would not apply to SIMCA has to be rejected by
this Court, since most of the members of SIMCA had
agreed to abide by the order of the Copyright Board. He
pointed out that therefore, whether they had participated
or not participated in the proceedings before the
Copyright Board could be made an issue and this Court
need not examine the said issue. The learned Senior
Counsel stated that the members had taken a conscious
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
decision not to participate in the proceedings before the
Copyright Board. The proceedings were conducted in
open Court in a transparent manner and everybody
involved in the industry knew about the ongoing
proceedings before the Copyright Board. The learned
Senior Counsel therefore stated that SIMCA not being a
Copyright Society, having no licence for copyright and
being registered only under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act, can only espouse the cause of its
members but none of the members had ever complained.
He therefore stated that the appeals by the SIMCA
against ENIL have to be dismissed as not
maintainable.”
41. The Court had also answered the said arguments in paragraph
Nos. 167 and 168:-
“167.The appellant/ SIMCA was not present
before the Copyright Board. The Copyright Board could
have, after passing the order and determining the rates,
granted liberty to anybody else, who had not
participated to seek clarifications/modifications. It is
seen that the members of the appellant had independent
agreements with the Radio Stations. They had agreed to
abide by the order of the Copyright Board in the first
instance: This agreement cannot be made to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
universally and ever always applicable.
168.There can be an agreement over a definite
issue or point, but there cannot be an agreement over
undeclared/unpronounced judgments. Vagaries of law
would take the decision maker through various paths
and no party can be bound unless they also had the
opportunity of presenting their views before the decision
making authority. A sweeping order and a statement that
the order would apply everybody else cannot withstand
the scrutiny of this Court. It has to be deprecated. I
would therefore hold with respect to Point No.3, that the
appellants had been seriously prejudiced by the
applicability of the order passed by the Copyright Board
and therefore the appeals filed by SIMCA are
maintainable. ”
42. A specific finding had been given that the order of the Copy
Right Board is not applicable to the petitioner. The logical conclusion is
that the agreement which the members of the petitioner Association had
with the respondents alone would prevail.
43. It had been contended that under the Copy Right Act 1957, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
first stage is to crystallise the amount due and payable if ever it is payable.
It has to be then adjudicated whether it is payable to the petitioner
Association or to the members of the petitioner Association. This is an
exercise which can be performed only by mutual participation by both the
parties. The members of the petitioner Association had sought details and
called upon the respondents to furnish a log of all the music played by the
Radio Stations for the period from August 2010 and December 2020.
44. In response to the same, the respondents have not given that
particular detail but had proceeded to give their own interpretation of the
common Judgment passed by this Court. This approach has been frowned
upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents have stated that the
demand of royalty along with furnishing of log sheets / play list is baseless
and completely inconsistent with the provisions of law.
45. This reply by the respondent only shows the contempt which
they have for judicial proceedings, for the petitioners and for the judicial
system as a whole, and probably also on the counsels/Senior Counsels
who had argued the Appeals. The respondents could have simply stated
whether they have the details or they do not have the details. If they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
the details, they will have to furnish the details. On the basis of the
details, the petitioner or the members of the petitioner Association will be
able to take any further steps as is deemed prudent. If the respondents do
not have the details, then they could very well disclose that they do not
have the details. But they cannot misinterpret the Judgment and give a
reply expressing their interpretation about the Judgment of this Court. The
respondents must realise that they are parties to the litigation and can
never elevate themselves as an authority to decide the litigation.
46. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CEIR LLT, the
Judgment referred supra by the learned counsel for the petitioners, even
when specific directions had not been issued, the purport of the Judgment
should be obeyed.
47. The petitioner was not a party before the Copy Right Board.
The Copy Right Board however made its order applicable to the petitioner.
This Court had directed that the order of the Copy Right Board would not
be applicable to the petitioner. It would automatically and directly mean
that the individual agreements would govern the relationship among the
parties so far as the payment of royalty is concerned. There is no other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
interpretation possible.
48. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents stated that if
there had been a breach of that particular agreement then, the petitioners'
remedy lies elsewhere. But that breach would occur only when the
respondents disclose the log details and thereafter take a decision that they
would not pay the amount in accordance with the agreement or pay under
a different rate or method. Here, there is denial even to furnish basic
fundamental information of the log details to the petitioners. This is
Contempt of Court. It does not behove on the part of the respondent to
give an interpretation of the Court's Judgment. They are bound by the
Judgment of the Court and if they are of the opinion that the Judgment of
the Court requires revisitation, then they should approach the Appellate
forum and obtain an order of restraint of further proceedings pursuant to
the Judgment of the Court.
49. In the instant case, the respondents have approached the
Supreme Court but had not obtained any order of stay which would
effectively mean that they are bound by the Judgment of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
50. With respect to the contention that an Execution Petition should
have been filed, I would only refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2022) 6 SCC 662 [ Urban Infrastructure Real Estate
Fund Vs. Dharmesh S. Jain and another], wherein a similar contention
was raised that an Execution Petition could be filed and when that avenue
is open, contempt petition should not be normally referred to. However,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows in paragraph Nos. 20, 21
and in paragraph No. 25. The said paragraphs are as follows:-
“20. Further, it is trite law that the jurisdiction of
a court under the Act, would not cease, merely because
the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is
executable under law, even without having recourse to
contempt proceedings.
21. Contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in
every case where the conduct of a contemnor is such as
would interfere with the due course of justice; vide
Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang [Rama Narang v.
Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] . Contempt is a
matter which is between the Court passing the order of
which contempt is alleged and the contemnor;
questions as to executability of such order is a question
which concerns the parties inter se. The power of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
Court to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way,
altered by the rights of the parties inter se vide Bank of
Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v.
Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] .
25. Further, the decision of this Court in Maruti
Udyog Ltd. v. Mahinder C. Mehta [Maruti Udyog Ltd.
v. Mahinder C. Mehta, (2007) 13 SCC 220 : AIR 2008
SC 309] suggests that irrespective of whether or not a
decree is executable, the question to be considered by
this Court in determining whether a case for contempt
has been made out was, whether, the conduct of the
contemnor was such as would make a fit case for
awarding punishment for contempt of court.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
51. In view of these reasons, I would issue the following directions
to the respondents herein in each of the three Contempt Petitions to
comply, failing which further orders would be passed:-
(i) the respondents in each of the three Contempt Petitions are
directed to produce before this Court the log of all music pertaining to he
petitioner Association / members of the petitioner Association played by
the Radio Stations run by the respondents for the period August 2010 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
December 2020;
(ii) calculate the royalty payable at the needle per hour rate as
stipulated in the individual agreements with the members of the petitioner
Association and furnish such calculation to this Court.
52. The respondents in each one of the three Contempt Petitions are
directed to comply with the aforementioned directions within a period of
four weeks from this date.
53. List the matter again on 26.09.2025 to report compliance.
26 .08.2025
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg
Pre Delivery Order made in
Cont.P.Nos. 3238, 3239
and 3380 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
26.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:36:16 pm )
