IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. NARENDAR, P.N. DESAI, JJ.
Supriya Shrinate W/o Dhirendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/s MRT Music and Others – Respondents
Commercial Appeal No. 460 of 2022
Decided On : 08-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Rule 3 - Order XXXIX - Copyright – Infringement - Injunction - Plaintiff instituted a suit trial court with a prayer to grant a relief of permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction - Plaint pleadings in brief are that, the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in production, marketing, distribution and sale of sound recordings and cinematography, sale of audio, CD, DVD, purchase of Audios and Videos and Film Digital rights therein - That it is a reputed entity in sound and music industry - Plaintiff operates its business by use of its trademark “MRT MUSIC.” - Repository of plaintiff consists of more than 20,000 songs which plaintiff owns and control and not limited to copyright. The plaintiff has acquired all the rights of sound recordings of Block Buster film KGF-Chapter-2 - Thereafter, plaintiff has released same through various channels and pen drives - It is alleged by the plaintiff that there is a copyright infringement by defendant nos. 1 to 3 - It is pleaded that during Bharat Jodo Yatra, an initiative of Indian National Congress, certain video recording of Yatra and also leader of Yatra were shared by first defendant’s Twitter Handle as well as Bharat Jodo Twitter Handle - Each video twitter was posted with a background music - That in two videos, background music is alleged to be similar to sound track of movie titled as KGF Chapter-2.
Finding of Court : As such whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex-parte order is not passed - But any such ex-parte order should be in force up to a particular date before which plaintiff should be required to serve notice on defendant concerned - In view of statement made by learned Senior Counsel Sri. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for appellant that he would provide screen shots of their Twitter Handle and also such other media before offending material is removed, in Court considered opinion, submissions of learned Senior Counsels for appellant appears to be fair - In response, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of first respondent would fairly submit that concessions be placed on record and matter be remitted back for consideration in accordance with law- Court are not delving deeper into issues - In view of submissions recorded by Court supra and in view of the nature of relief grant - Court answers all points for consideration against first respondent and in favour of Appellant. [Para 35 to 40]
Result : Appeal is allowed-in-part.
JUDGMENT :
G. NARENDAR, J.
1. The appellants have assailed the order passed by LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Division, Bangalore (CCH-86), on I.A. Nos. I to VI in Commercial Original Suit No. 1594/2022 dated 07.11.2022 wherein the trial Court issued a direction to respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 4) to remove and take down the links from it’s platform and to block the social media handle of Indian National congress [@ INC India] and Bharat Jodo Yatra [@ Bharat Jodo] on Twitter, on the ground of Appellants having infringed the copyright of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant No. 2 before trial court and the respondent No. 1 is plaintiff. The other respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are also defendants before trial court.
3. The plaintiff instituted a suit before the trial court with a prayer to grant a relief of permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction. The plaint pleadings in brief are that, the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in production, marketing, distribution and sale of sound recordings and cinematography, sale of audio, CD, DVD, purchase of Audios and Videos and Film Digital rights therein. That it is a reputed entity in the sound and music industry. The plaintiff operates its business by use of its trademark “MRT MUSIC.” The repository of the plaintiff consists of more than 20,000 songs which the plaintiff owns and control and not limited to copyright. The plaintiff has acquired all the rights of sound recordings of the Block Buster film KGF-Chapter-2. Thereafter, the plaintiff has released the same through various channels and pen drives.
4. It is alleged by the plaintiff that there is a copyright infringement by the defendant nos. 1 to 3. It is pleaded that during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, an initiative of the Indian National Congress, certain video recording of the Yatra and also the leader of the Yatra were shared by the first defendant’s Twitter Handle as well as the Bharat Jodo Twitter Handle. Each video twitter was posted with a background music. That in two videos, the background music is alleged to be similar to the sound track of the movie titled as KGF Chapter-2. It is alleged by the plaintiff that Indian National Congress social media Handle has used the alleged sound track in two videos and uploaded it to the Indian National Congress Twitter Handle and circulated the said video in an alleged fraudulent manner in order to make a wrongful gain. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants are profiteering and their gains is causing unlawful, unjust and irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The use of copyright work without authorisation and consent is willful and dishonest. Hence, the suit praying and seeking for injunction against infringement of it’s copyright.
5. Alongwith the said suit, plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 1 to 6 which are heard by the Commercial Court and the Commercial Court passed an ex-parte order which is under challenge now.
6. I.A. No. 3 is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w 79 of the IT Act with a prayer restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 from infringing or illegally using, the copyrighted work owned by the plaintiff and from illegally using the said work owned by the plaintiff. I.A No. 4 is for direction to defendant No 4 to remove and take down the links from its platform and I.A. No. 5 is with prayer to suspend the social media handle till submission of report. I.A. No. 6 is for an order to appoint a Court Commissioner/technical expert, to inspect and conduct an electronic audit of the said twitter-handle, controlled by defendant No. 1 to 3. The trial court heard and proceeded to grant an ad-interim temporary and mandatory injunction, ex-parte, which is under challenge before this Court.
7. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. Abhishek Manu Singhvi along with senior counsels Sri. Udaya Holla and Sri. A.S. Ponnanna representing Smt. Leela P. learned counsel for the appellants and learned Senior counsel
A. Venkata Subbaiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan and Others
Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed and Others
Kandla Export Corporation and Another vs. OCI Corporation
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das
Mr. R.K. Jain vs. Sri. P.G. Chacko
Ramachandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Joti Chavare
Samir Narain Bhojwani vs. Aurora Properties and Investments and Another
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
The court applied the 'Triple Test' for grant of injunctions and found that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for the injunction.
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of an exparte order of temporary injunction must comply with the Trinity Test as mandated by the Supreme Court, and the trial Court ....
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
The failure to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice constitutes a jurisdictional error and renders such orders unsustainable.
An appeal against an ex-parte injunction is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), affirming that the right to appeal is a statutory right.
The duty of fair disclosure and the exceptional nature of without notice applications, emphasizing the importance of time-limited injunctions and the reserved liberty for the Defendants to apply for ....
(1) An ad interim injunction shall not be granted in derogation of right of opposite party.(2) An order passed without issuing notice to opposite party cannot be brought under purview of Section 36 C....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.