2021 Supreme(Mad) 2379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its authorised Signatory S. Swaminathan - Appellant
Versus
DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Nachiket Suthankar, Managing Director-India, Bangalore & Another - Respondent
Civil Suit Nos. 407 & 413 of 2020
Decided On : 08-12-2021

Headnote:

Copyright Ac, 1957 - Sections 51, 18(2) , 30, 17, 18, 19, 30, 33 , 33(3) , 33 , 18(2) , 55 and 62 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 1 - Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 - Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 - Sections 34, 33(1) and 33 - Decree of Mandatory Injunction restraining Defendant - Assigned and authorized to the Plaintiff or allowing their premises - Dual meaning viz., profession/ practising a craft and misfortune/grief - Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction restraining Defendant, its directors, their servants, employees, agents, assignees, licensees, representatives, and/or any person claiming through them or acting on their behalf, from publicity performing or in any manner communicating sound recordings of songs assigned and authorized to Plaintiff or allowing their premises or any premises under their control to Plaintiff or allowing their premises or any premises under their control to be used for said purposes, without obtaining non-exclusive public performance rights in sound recordings from Plaintiff - Court be pleased to issue a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction directing Defendant, to hand over all disks, Cds, laptops, mobile phones, SD cards, flash drives, hard disks - Plaintiff copyrighted works and used by Defendant and to deliver them up for destruction - Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Preliminary Decree in favour of Plaintiff directing the Defendant to render true and complete details of all in house events held by them over last three years prior to institution of present Suit where on ground performance rights were exploited – Held, plaintiff contended that joining a copyright society is purely optional as is evident from Section 34 of the Act - Right to issue licenses cannot, therefore, be made contingent upon the owner being a member of any copyright society. However, this argument fails to impress this Court - There is no doubt true that an owner need not necessarily join a copyright society - First proviso to Section 33 makes it clear that the right of an owner to issue licenses, in his individual - Entire cause of action for the suits are therefore misconceived, in as much as it is predicated on a fictitious assumption that defendants have violated rights of the plaintiff by failing to obtain licenses from it for on-ground performance rights of various sound recordings - Once it is found that plaintiff is statutorily barred from issuing licenses in view of Section 33, there can be no question of the defendant being mulcted with liability failing to obtain a license which the plaintiff cannot, in law, grant. It must necessarily follow that the very substratum for the relief of injunction and damages - C.S.No. 407 of 2020 and C.S.No. 413 of 2020 will Copyright Ac, 1957 - Sections 51, 18(2) , 30, 17, 18, 19, 30, 33 , 33(3) , 33 , 18(2) , 55 and 62 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 1 - Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 - Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 - Sections 34, 33(1) and 33 - Decree of Mandatory Injunction restraining Defendant - Assigned and authorized to the Plaintiff or allowing their premises - Dual meaning viz., profession/ practising a craft and misfortune/grief - Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction restraining Defendant, its directors, their servants, employees, agents, assignees, licensees, representatives, and/or any person claiming through them or acting on their behalf, from publicity performing or in any manner communicating sound recordings of songs assigned and authorized to Plaintiff or allowing their premises or any premises under their control to Plaintiff or allowing their premises or any premises under their control to be used for said purposes, without obtaining non-exclusive public performance rights in sound recordings from Plaintiff - Court be pleased to issue a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction directing Defendant, to hand over all disks, Cds, laptops, mobile phones, SD cards, flash drives, hard disks - Plaintiff copyrighted works and used by Defendant and to deliver them up for destruction - Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Preliminary Decree in favour of Plaintiff directing the Defendant to render true and complete details of all in house events held by them over last three years prior to institution of present Suit where on ground performance rights were exploited – Held, plaintiff contended that joining a copyright society is purely optional as is evident from Section 34 of the Act - Right to issue licenses cannot, therefore, be made contingent upon the owner being a member of any copyright society. However, this argument fails to impress this Court - There is no doubt true that an owner need not necessarily join a copyright society - First proviso to Section 33 makes it clear that the right of an owner to issue licenses, in his individual - Entire cause of action for the suits are therefore misconceived, in as much as it is predicated on a fictitious assumption that defendants have violated rights of the plaintiff by failing to obtain licenses from it for on-ground performance rights of various sound recordings - Once it is found that plaintiff is statutorily barred from issuing licenses in view of Section 33, there can be no question of the defendant being mulcted with liability failing to obtain a license which the plaintiff cannot, in law, grant. It must necessarily follow that the very substratum for the relief of injunction and damages - C.S.No. 407 of 2020 and C.S.No. 413 of 2020 will stand dismissed.