Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
The Indian Performing Rights Society Limited, - Appellant
Versus
Mr.K.Murali – Respondent
C.S.No.723 of 2019 and A.Nos.1832 & 1833 of 2023
Decided on : 21-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, K.Nithyavendan for M/s.GMS Law Associates
For the Respondent: Mr.D.Murugan for D1
The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to injunctive relief and damages for unauthorized public performances of copyrighted works, emphasizing the importance of licensing under the Copyright Act.
Headnote:
(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 18, 19, and 33 - Injunctive relief sought to restrain public performances of copyrighted works without a license - Plaintiff entitled to profits and damages due to unauthorized use of repertoire - Defendants set ex parte for failure to appear - Evidence established unauthorized performances and entitlement to relief. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Settlement Agreement - First defendant agreed to settle for Rs.20,00,000/- but failed to comply fully - Decree for rendition of accounts contingent on payment by 01.07.2025. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendants for conducting public performances of copyrighted works without a license and claimed damages of Rs.1 crore. Defendants failed to appear, leading to their being set ex parte. Evidence showed unauthorized performances at multiple events.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and a decree for profits, with costs awarded due to the defendants' non-compliance.
Issues: The main issues included the defendants' unauthorized use of copyrighted material and the enforcement of the settlement agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was uncontradicted, establishing entitlement to relief and costs, while the settlement agreement's enforcement was conditional on payment.
Result: Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
By this suit, the plaintiff has prayed for injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from conducting public performances of the plaintiff's repertoire of literary and musical works without obtaining a license from the plaintiff and without paying the author's statutory royalty to the plaintiff. In addition, rendition of accounts followed by a decree of profits and damages of Rs.1 crore have also been prayed for.
2. Suit summons was served on the first defendant on 21.08.2023. The first defendant failed to enter appearance in person or through counsel and, therefore, did not file a written statement. Consequently, the first defendant was set ex parte by order dated 05.09.2023. Suit summons was served on the second and third defendants on 04.01.2020 and 22.01.2020, respectively. Since the said defendants also failed to file their written statements, by order dated 30.07.2021, the right of all the defendants to file written statements was forfeited. Defendants 2 and 3 remained unrepresented thereafter. Even today, the said defendants are unrepresented. In view thereof, the second and third defendants are also set ex parte.
3. By order dated 25.08.2021, the matter was posted before the Additional Master No.I for recording evidence. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff examined four witnesses. Ms.Sheetal D.Madnani was examined as P.W.1. In course of her examination-in-chief, 40 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P40. Mr.K.Prabhu, Licensing Executive of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.2. In course of his examination-in-chief, two documents were marked as Exs.P41 and P42. Mr.Pawankumar Ramesh Chandar Gupta, the Assistant Manager, Distribution Department of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.3. In course of his examination-in-chief, three documents were exhibited as Exs.P43 and P44. Mr.N.J.Venkataraman, Area Manager of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.4. In course of his examination-in- chief, Exs.P45 to P59 were exhibited. Although the second and third defendants had not been set ex parte at that juncture, they did not contest the proceedings or cross examine any of the witnesses. As stated earlier, as regards the first defendant, the said defendant was set ex parte on 05.09.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant conducted about four events at which public performances of copyrighted material took place without obtaining licenses from the plaintiff and without paying royalty. He referred to the events described at paragraphs 31 to 40 of the plaint. As regards the event organized by the first and second defendants at Hosur Mela Ground under the title “Paatu Thalaivan Paadinal Musical Programme”, learned counsel submitted that evidence was adduced by the plaintiff through P.W.2. In particular, he referred to the proof affidavit of K.Prabhu and the ticket exhibited under Ex.P41. He also referred to the evidence of P.W.3 in this regard. With particular reference to paragraphs 4 to 6 of such proof affidavit, learned counsel submits that the authors and publishers of the songs performed at the event are members of the plaintiff.
5. By referring to Exs.P39 and P40, he also submits that notices were issued by the plaintiff before the suit was instituted, including by way of a lawyer's notice.
6. The plaintiff is a copyright society registered with the Central Government. In terms of Sections 18 , 19 and 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 , copyright societies are permitted to grant licenses and collect royalty on behalf of their members. In the plaint, the plaintiff has referred to four events that were organized by the first defendant. The fourth of these events is the event at Hosur Mela Ground. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly establish that the songs performed at this event were published by members of the plaintiff society.
7. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff, especially in the factual context of no contra evidence being adduced by the defendants, leads to the conclusion that the pla
