The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of comity between High Courts and the need to avoid parallel proceedings in matters subject to statutory appeals before the High Court.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. Both these intra-court appeals impugn the common judgment dated 9th January, 2015 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.8144/2011 and W.P.(C) No.7724/2011 filed by the appellants respectively.

2. Having gone through the paper books, though voluminous, and having prima facie not found any merit in the appeals, we heard the senior counsel for the appellants at length on 10th March, 2015 when the appeals first came up before us, and reserved judgment.

3. The controversy is in a narrow compass. The respondent no.3 in the two appeals, namely Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. and Radio Mid Day West (India) Limited, on 21st June, 2001 and 1st March, 2002 respectively, filed complaints under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 against the appellants and seeking the relief inter alia of grant of compulsory license (hereinafter called compulsory copyright licence) for the entire repertoire of the appellants for communicating to the public via Radio FM Stations for which the respondent no.3 in each of the appeals, then had been granted license to operate FM Radio (hereinafter called radio licence). Vide interim orders dated 19th November, 2002 in each of the said complaints, the Copyright Board permitted each of the respondents no.3 to broadcast the repertoire of the appellants and fixed the interim rates which the said respondents no.3 were to pay to the appellants therefor and vis-a-vis which interim arrangement made by the copyright Board, the parties litigated till the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent no.3 in both appeals were granted radio licenses to run/operate Radio FM at other stations/cities also besides the stations/cities qua which they were initially granted radio license and qua which they in their complaints had sought compulsory copyright licence.

4. It is the contention of the appellants that the respondent no.3 in neither of the appeal filed complaints under Section 31(1)(b) seeking the relief of compulsory copyright license vis-a-vis stations/cities with respect to which they had subsequently been granted radio licenses nor amended the complaints originally made, to include the said stations/cities also therein.

5. The Copyright Board by its order dated 25th August, 2010 directed the Registrar of Copyrights (respondent no.2 in each of the appeals) to grant compulsory copyright license to the respondent no.3 in each of the appeals in relation to the works constituting the repertoire of the appellants and on the terms and conditions specified in the said order.

6. It is the contention of the appellants that the said order of the Copyright Board, being on the complaints with respect to specified radio stations/cities with respect to which each of the respondent no.3 had initially been granted radio license to operate FM Radio, is with respect to those stations/cities only and not with respect to the stations/cities with respect to which the respondent no.3 in each of the appeals had subsequently been granted radio license to run/operate FM Radio.

7. The appellants preferred statutory appeals before the High Court of Madras under Section 72(2) of the Copyright Act against the order dated 25th August, 2010 of the Copyright Board. The said appeals are still pending. It is the admitted position that the application of the appellants in the said appeals for interim relief of stay of the order of the Copyright Board stand dismissed.

8. The Registrar of Copyrights however in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 25th August, 2010 of the Copyright Board, granted compulsory copyright licence to the respondent no.3 in each of the appeals with respect to the repertoire of the appellants, not only for the stations/cities with respect to which the respondent no.3 in each of the appeals had originally been granted radio license but also with respect to the stations/cities with respect to which the respondent no.3 in each of the a