SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 1208

ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH
Phonographic Performance Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Menon, Adv. Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv., Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Sr. Adv.
For the Petitioner In SC 1461-62, 1782-83,1841-42 & 1888-89 2011: Ms. Prathiba M.Singh, Adv. Mr. Naval Agarwal, Adv. all of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Deepak Gogia, Adv. Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prathiba M.Singh, Adv. Mr. Naval Agarwal, Adv. and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent No. 1 in SC 5727-35/11: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.-on-record., Mr. Deepak Gogia, Adv. Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Dushayanta Dave, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent in SC 5727-35/11: Mr. K.Datta, Adv. Mr. Diggaj Pathak, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv., Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Meghnaq Mishra, Adv. Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv. For M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neil Hildreth, Adv. Dr. Kishore Kunal, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv., Mr. Gaichang Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Adv. Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv.

ORDER :

1. SLP(C) Nos. 5727-5735 of 2011, have been filed against the order dated 22nd December, 2010, passed by the Madras High Court in several miscellaneous petitions in CMA Nos.3293, 3382 to 3385, 3387 to 3390 all of 2010, rejecting the prayer made therein by the appellants for interim stay of the order passed by the Copyright Board, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the pending appeals.

2. Since we are mainly concerned with the refusal of the courts below to pass interim orders, during the pendency of the appeals, we shall briefly indicate the circumstances in which these Special Leave Petitions came to be filed and are being considered today.

3. It appears that in relation to various applications made under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, for grant of licence for broadcasting and sound recording, the Copyright Board had by an order dated 19th November, 2002, determined the interim standard rate of royalty at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per needle hour and certain other directions were also given. The said order resulted in overall payment of Rs. 660/- per needle hour by way of royalty. The said order of the Copyright Board was questioned by both the parties in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top