Rajasthan High Court
Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 430/2023
Phonographic Performance Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 471/2023
Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. H.V. Nandwana
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Atishay Jain
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. through VC
Mr. Akash Shrivastava
Mr. Ankur Sangal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with
Mr. Udit Sharma,
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Kachhawa and
Ms. Kinjal Surana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
23/01/2023
1. On behalf of respondents, Additional Advocate General put in
appearance and seeks time to file reply. Service stands complete.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
prays to stay the operation of the impugned letter dated
7.12.2022 issued by the Additional Police Commissioner-I, Jaipur.
3. It has been argued that vide impugned letter, provisions of
Section 52(1) (za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereafter "the Act
(2 of 3) [CW-471/2023]
of 1957") has been interpreted in erroneous manner and without
jurisdiction, the issuance of such letter violates copyrights of
petitioners as well as deprive them to take legal remedies
including civil and criminal against persons who infringes their
copyrights. It has been argued that in the garb of the impugned
letter, hoteliers, event managers and DJs in the private function
and parties can play music/sound recordings for commercial
purposes also over which the petitioners have copyrights. While
provision of Section 52(1) (za) of the Act of 1957 itself is very
clear and the issuance of impugned letter is arbitrary as much as
in abuse of powers, just to extend benefit to hoteliers/ event
managers/DJs.
4. Counsel has pointed out that Government of India issued a
public notice dated 27.8.2019 wherein Section 52(1) (za) of the
Act of 1957 was interpreted and the necessity of license was
exempted which was analogous to the impugned letter dated
7.12.2022. The said public notice was challenged before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by filing CWP
No.28758/2019, Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union
of India and Another. After hearing both parties the High Court
vide judgment dated 19.5.2022 has quashed the said public notice
with observation that such notice is without jurisdiction as
respondents have no jurisdiction to interpret Section 52(1) (za) of
the Act of 1957 in their own manner.
5. Per contra, Additional Advocate General has argued that the
letter dated 7.12.2022 has been issued to maintain law and order
and it does not permit hoteliers/event managers/DJs to play
music/sound recordings for commercial purposes, which are duly
(3 of 3) [CW-471/2023]
registered under the Act of 1957, without obtaining license from
the registered copyright holders.
6. Having heard counsel for both parties, taking into
consideration the spacious language used in the impugned letter
dated 7.12.2022 as also the judgment in the case of Novex
Communication Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as an interim measure, this
Court deems it just and proper to stay the operation of impugned
letter dated 7.12.2022 to the extent that this letter would not be
treated as permission to any person hoteliers/event managers/DJs
to play music/sound recordings for commercial purposes without
obtaining license/permission from the registered copyright
holders. The impugned letter will not deprive the petitioners to
initiate legal proceedings, civil and criminal, as envisaged under
the Act of 1957 against the persons who infringes copyrights of
petitioners.
7. List after four weeks.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /69-70
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
