2021 Supreme(Del) 2460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Entertainment Network India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Phonographic Performance Limited India & Ors. – Respondent
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 3 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 13 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 12 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 10 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 9 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 6 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 7 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 11 of 2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 14 of 2021 & I.A. 11410-11 of 2021.
Decided on : 27-09-2021

The Court has the jurisdiction to fix interim rates under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Headnote:

COPYRIGHT - STATUTORY LICENSE - BROADCAST OF SOUND RECORDINGS - INTERIM RELIEF - STATUS QUO - RATES FIXED BY IPAB - EXTENSION - COMPOSITE RATES - SEVERABILITY - JURISDICTION - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT - SECTION 151 CPC - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - FUTURE WORKS - ENIL-2021 - PER INCURIAM - MAIN LEGAL POINT : THE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO FIX INTERIM RATES UNDER SECTION 31D OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, private radio broadcasting organizations, sought revision of statutory license rate under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Rule 31(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, for broadcasting sound recordings, which are owned and/or exclusively controlled by the Respondents herein, via the Petitioner’s radio stations. The erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPAB’] had prescribed the license fee rates which are currently in force, payable by the Petitioners for exercise of their right under Section 31D, vide a common order dated 31st December, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPAB Order’], pursuant to a petition filed by them under Section 31D of the Act. With the promulgation of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which was replaced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the IPAB stands abolished w.e.f. 04th April, 2021 and its functions stand transferred to judicial bodies. Now the jurisdiction to revise/fix the license fee rates under Section 31D vests with the Commercial Division of this Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Petitioners are entitled to an interim relief of maintenance of status quo of the IPAB Order, in relation to the royalty rates, till such time final determination of revision of royalty rates is completed, in compliance with Rules. The Court found no merit in the contention that the delay by the Petitioners disentitles them to the prayer sought. The Court observed that the scope of proceedings under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 is limited to fixation of rates of royalty to be paid to the owner of copyright. The Court also observed that the position in law remains unchanged after the 2012 Amendment. The Court held that it has the power to fix interim rates under Section 31D. The Court further held that the IPAB Orders sets out the composite rates for both sound recordings and underlying works. The Court also held that the IPAB Order should be extended in entirety and not with alteration. The Court directed that status quo be maintained in respect of payment of royalty for broadcast of sound recordings by the Petitioners, with effect from 01st October 2021, as per rates determined by IPAB in its Order dated 31st December 2020, pending final determination of revised statutory royalty rates by this Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an interim relief of maintenance of status quo of the IPAB Order, in relation to the royalty rates, till such time final determination of revision of royalty rates is completed, in compliance with Rules? 2. What is the scope of proceedings under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957? 3. Whether the position in law remains unchanged after the 2012 Amendment? 4. Whether the Court has the power to fix interim rates under Section 31D? 5. Whether the IPAB Orders sets out the composite rates for both sound recordings and underlying works? 6. Whether the IPAB Order should be extended in entirety or with alteration?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Petitioners are entitled to an interim relief of maintenance of status quo of the IPAB Order, in relation to the royalty rates, till such time final determination of revision of royalty rates is completed, in compliance with Rules. The Court found no merit in the contention that the delay by the Petitioners disentitles them to the prayer sought. 2. The Court observed that the scope of proceedings under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 is limited to fixation of rates of royalty to be paid to the owner of copyright. 3. The Court observed that the position in law remains unchanged after the 2012 Amendment. 4. The Court held that it has the power to fix interim rates under Section 31D. 5. The Court held that the IPAB Orders sets out the composite rates for both sound recordings and underlying works. 6. The Court held that the IPAB Order should be extended in entirety and not with alteration.

Final Decision: The Court directed that status quo be maintained in respect of payment of royalty for broadcast of sound recordings by the Petitioners, with effect from 01st October 2021, as per rates determined by IPAB in its Order dated 31st December 2020, pending final determination of revised statutory royalty rates by this Court.