IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

CS(OS) NO. 1725 / 2009

I.A. Nos. 11891, 11892, 15512/2009

 

THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD.     ….Plaintiff

 

Through:  Mr. Jagdish Sagar with

Ms. Geetanjali Viswanathan, Advocates

 

Versus

 

COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.                                                       …Defendant

 

                                                Through: None

 

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

 

O R D E R

01.12.2009

 

I.A. NO. 11892/2009 (exemption)

 

Learned counsel states that the original of the documents would be filed within six weeks.

 

Application is disposed of in terms of the statement.

 

I.A. – 15512/2009 (for amendment)

 

The Court has not issued summons in the Suit.  The plaintiff seeks to amend it.  In view of the averments and having regard to the stage of the Suit, the Court is of the opinion that interest of justice requires that the request should be acceded to.

 

I.A. No. 15512/2009 is, therefore, allowed.  The amended plaint is hereby taken on record.

 

CS(OS) No. 1725/2009

 

Issue summons to the defendants, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 10th February 2010, who shall ensure that the parties complete pleadings and also admit/deny documents through affidavit; thereafter, the matter shall be listed before the Court on 13th July, 2010, for framing of issues.

 

I.A. – 11891/2009 (O-39, R-1 &2)

 

Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13th July, 2010, before Court.

 

The plaintiff company is limited by guarantee is a copyright society within the meaning of the expression under Section – 33 of the Copyright Act.  it claims to have administering rights in respect of the works of inter alia  1879 Authors, Lyricists, Composers of musical works and, therefore, entitled to maintain the  present proceeding.  The list of the plaintiff’s members is disclosed in the list of documents filed with the Suit.

 

The plaintiff claims that the defendant has communicated to the public, by way of public performance, musical works, in which it has rights to administer copyright.  The plaintiff relies upon a video clipping, performed on the defendant’s website – http://countryclubindia.net/about-us.php.  The said video clipping was played in the Court today.  It is contended that the defendant is aware of the plaintiff’s rights and has acknowledged it by obtaining licenses from it for public performances of musical events and shows by paying annual fees.  The members in this regard are disclosed in paragraph 22 (a) of the Suit; the Suit also describes the performances through video clippings of the 15 works, which according to the plaintiff has right to administer copyrights.

 

The plaintiff apprehends that in the forthcoming new year’s events proposed to be organized by the defendant, similar violations are likely to occur, as the latter have not approached it (the plaintiff) for any license.  It is submitted that the continued display of the public performance recorded at various locations on 31.12.2008 is with a view to advertise the defendant’s intentions and the plaintiff contends a threat of copyright violation on that score by the defendant.

 

Having considered the materials, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to establish prima facie  copyright violation of the songs, literary and music works, of which it has copyright administration rights.  Apart from the website, the plaintiff has filed along with list of documents, copies from the website of the defendant which record the event (pages 22-47B)

 

The Court is of the opinion, having viewed the defendant’s website and the streaming videos available on it that the defendant is advertising the said event and is likely to indulge in similar copyright violations of the plaintiff’s work.

 

In the circumstances, the defendants their agents, employees or anyone acting on their behalf are hereby restrained from communicating to the public the literary and / or musical works in which the plaintiff has rights to administer copyright, more particularly, in relation the works of 1829 of its members without obtaining the plaintiff’s licenses till the next date of hearing.

 

Provisions of Order – 39, Rule – 3 shall be complied with within three days.