ORDER :

1. As both applications raise common issues, at request of learned counsel for parties, the applications were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The present suit has been filed for infringement of copyright and quia-timet action for apprehended future violation by the Defendants. The Plaintiff has pleaded that it is the owner/exclusive licensee of the copyright in the sound recordings in its repertoire on the basis of assignment deeds /exclusive agreements of the relevant copyrights in its favour by several music companies. The Plaintiff claims to be exclusively entitled to grant licenses for communication to the public/ public performance of its repertoire of sound recordings under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (for short, “Copyright Act”). The suit has been initiated as the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant who are the owners of about 94 restaurants, without obtaining the license from the Plaintiff as contemplated under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, are unauthorisedly broadcasting the Plaintiff’s sound recordings infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright.

3. The defences are that the suit itself is not maintainable for nonimpleadment of owner of copyright, that the Plaintiff not being registered society is not entitled to grant licences, there is suppression of material facts as the copies of purported agreements in favour of the Plaintiff have not been annexed to the plaint, that incomplete assignment deeds have been annexed to the plaint and that the assignment deeds are inadequately stamped.

4. Mr. Jagtiani, Leaned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff is the owner/exclusive licensee of copyright in the sound recordings in its repertoire. He submits that the assignment deeds/exclusive licenses being voluminous documents are set out in the Compact Disk (CD) which is filed along with the plaint and a sample agreement is annexed at Exhibit “E” to the plaint which demonstrates the Plaintiff’s copyright ownership in the sound recordings. He would submit that cease and desist notice was issued to the Defendants who are operating about 94 establishments without securing the license from the Plaintiff. He would further point out to the affidavit of Plaintiff’s representative who has deposed on oath about his visit to the Defendant’s establishments and video recorded the unauthorised broadcasting of the songs. He has taken this Court through various interim orders granted in favour of Plaintiff by this Court in identical matters. He would submits that theDefendants’ contention of the license terms being unreasonable which amounts to refusal to allow public performance and premised on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Ltd. (supra) cannot constitute a defence to an action for copyright infringement. He would further submit that in event the said defence is taken, it constitutes an admission of the Plaintiff’s ownership in the copyright which itself is being denied by the Defendant. He would further submit that this Court in a group of petitions in the case of Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotesl Limited, (1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 252) has taken a view that the Plaintiff is entitled to seek relief as sought for in the plaint without being registered as copyright society under Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act. He would submit that the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court does not bind this Court. He would further point out Section 54 and Section 55(1) of the Copyright Act to contend that even exclusive licensee is entitled to maintain an action for infringement. Relying upon extract from Copinger and Skone James on Copyrights, Mr. Jagtiani submits that a copyright owner or exclusive licensee may apply for interim injunction without joining the owner or obtaining leave of the Court.

5. Mr. Jagtiani would submit that reliance placed upon Section 61 of the Copyright Act is mispl