The plaintiffs in both the suits, CS(OS) 1216/07 and CS(OS) 1356/207 are common; the first plaintiff is the Indian Performing Arts Society (hereafter “IPRS”) a company limited by guarantee, incorporated to protect and safeguard its members’ rights. Its members are comprised of authors, composers and publishers of musical or literary works. The IPRS says that it is also committed to protect the rights of other overseas Sister societies, which are copyright owners in their literary and musical works. The IPRS claims to be the sole national copyright society of composers, authors and publishers of literary and musical works, from India, and other countries. IPRS also says that it was “re-registered” as a copyright society, in terms of Section 33 (3) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”) after its amendment in 1994, and relies on a certificate of registration, to such effect, dated 27th March, 1996.

2. It is stated that members of IPRS, comprising of authors, composers and publishers of Indian literary and musical works, have executed assignment deeds, in respect of their public performing rights, and rights to communicate their works to the public, under the Act, as well as works which they might produce in the future. The IPRS therefore claims to be owner of such rights.

3. The second defendant, (hereafter called PPRS) claims to be a society engaged in copyright business of licensing rights in respect of sound recordings, of its members; it too avers to being a copyright society under Section 33 of the Act, in respect of sound recording rights under the Act, of its members. PPRS states that it has the right to issue licenses in respect of sound recording and performance rights in relation to such sound

.recording, of its members, in India. It is alleged that the PPRS membership consists of some of the best known sound recording companies, in India, and abroad, and therefore, it has the exclusive right to administer one of the most extensive repertoire of musical works.

4. The plaintiffs say that though both are copyright societies, under Section 33 of the Act, the IPRS is authorised to administer rights of authors, composers, etc. in respect of underlying works and compositions, that are embodied in musical and literary works, that may (or may not) be embodied in sound recordings; the PPRS has exclusive rights to administer copyrights in relation to sound recordings. It is contended that license obtained from one plaintiff is not sufficient, if the public performance right license (in relation to sound recordings) is not secured from the other, having regard to the nature of copyrights, which are a bundle of separate, and concurrent rights.

5. It is contended that the first defendant is executive director of the second defendant (hereafter collectively referred to as “ZEE”). Zee was incorporated in 1992 as a broadcaster, and as on the date of filing of the suits, it has several channels, including those beaming regional language programmes, as well as those dealing with news, general entertainment, such as music, films, etc. The predecessors of ZEE, i.e. Zee Telefilms Ltd., say the plaintiffs, had acquired license from them, in 2005, which expired in October, 2006, for performance and broadcasting rights in respect of sound recordings, to be used in their programmes. This, they allege, constitute its acknowledgement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights. It is alleged, in these circumstances, that the use such sound recordings in ZEE’s programmes – by ZEE Entertainment Ltd., led to filing of a suit, CS (OS) 1216/2007, in which an interim order was made. As an interim measure, parties agreed that the plaintiffs would be paid some amounts, in return for which the defendants were permitted to use their sound recordings in the entertainment programme HERO HONDA SA RE GA MA PA. In the subsequent suit, it is alleged that the second defendant, ZEE NEWS LTD., (also part of the ZEE group) is indulging in copyright violation by unauthori