Point of Law: Copy right of video songs – Interim injunction - No prejudice is caused to the Appellant by the impugned order. The objection to the exploitation by Respondent No.2 regarding publicity is irrelevant as, ultimately, it is only the singer who gets the publicity when a song is released.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

The Appellant has filed a commercial suit against the Respondents regarding the copyright of two music videos, "Pyar To Na Kaho” and “Lutti Heer". The Appellant has sought a declaration that Respondent No.1- Company owns the copyright and has prayed for an injunction against Respondent Nos.2 to 6. In the Interim Application taken out by the Appellant in the Suit, an interim order was passed by consent of parties. However, later on, upon an application filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Single Judge has varied the consent order. Challenging this order varying the earlier consent order, the Appellant is before us by this Commercial Appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. The main grievance of the Appellant is the denial of opportunity by the learned Single Judge to file a reply and contest the application taken out by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for modification of the earlier consent order. The Appellant's prayer is to set aside the impugned order, grant time to the Appellant to file a reply to the application, and the application be re-heard. In view of this limited submission, we have considered the facts of the case to ascertain whether the Appellant's grievance is justified.

3. Mr. Aman Chabra, the Appellant- Plaintiff and Ms. Ragini Subhash Tandan, Respondent No.2- Defendant No.2, have set up Company TRAC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.1- Defendant No.1. The Company was set up to produce sound, audio, music videos and to promote/publish the same. The Appellant and Respondent No.2 each hold 50% shares in Respondent No.1- Company. Shiv Tandon, Respondent No.3- Defendant No.3, is the brother of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.4- Defendant No.4 is the friend of the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Similarly, Respondent/Defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 are individual entities in the same profession whom the Appellant joined as parties to the suit as the Appellant has alleged that they have colluded with Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. The Appellant filed Commercial I.P. Suit (L) No.7101/2020 on 11 August 2020, joining Respondent Nos.1 to 7 as party Defendants. The suit was regarding the copyright of two music videos, “Pyar Ko Na Kaho" and “Lutti Heer” (the songs). According to the Appellant, Respondent No.1- Company has produced the songs by utilizing the investment amount. Respondent No.1 is solely and exclusively entitled to deal with the songs and commercially exploit the same. According to the Appellant, he has invested a substantial amount in producing the songs. The Appellant sought a declaration that Respondent No.1- Company was the exclusive producer and owner of the copyrights in the songs and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 committed infringement of the copyrights of Respondent No.1- Company, and they should be restrained by order of injunction from dealing with the songs in any manner. The Appellant also sought compensation for the infringement of the copyrights. The other reliefs ancillary to the main reliefs were also prayed.

5. The Appellant took out an Interim Application (L) No.7114/2021 in the Commercial Suit seeking an order of injunction against Respondent Nos.2 to 6 to restrain them from in any manner dealing with the songs. The case of the Appellant is that the dispute that had arisen between the parties was sought to be settled, but Respondent Nos.2 and 3 kept delaying the execution of the settlement agreement. The Appellant came across posts on social media- Facebook and Instagram in February 2020 wherein Respondent No.2 was proceeding to launch one of the songs which were produced by Respondent No.1- Company, under a different name. In July 2020, similar steps were taken regarding the other song. With these allegations, the Appellant prayed for an order of injunction.

6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their reply to the interim application on 27 August 2020. They contended as follows: Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent No.1- Company have any copyright in the