##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-OS:27100

IA(L)-36005-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORIGINAL ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36005 OF 2025

IN

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 668 OF 2025

Phonographic Performance Limited ... Applicant

Versus

VISHAL

SUBHASH Trinetra Venture and Ors. ... Defendants

PAREKAR

Digitally signed by

VISHAL SUBHASH

PAREKAR AND

Date: 2025.12.24

18:01:43 +0530

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 32745 OF 2025

IN

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 32556 OF 2025

Phonographic Performance Limited ... Applicant

Versus

Anoor Paripati and Ors. ... Defendants

—————

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Amogh Singh,

Ms.Avanti, Mr. Asmant Nimbalkar, Mr. Neeraj Nawar, Ms. Shikha Dutta,

Ms. Sheryl D’souza i/by Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocates for the Applicant-

Plaintiff.

Mr. Sandeep Parikh along with Arsalan A. Thaver i/by Mr. Abhiraj Parab,

Advocates for the Defendants.

—————

Coram : SHARMILA U.DESHMUKH J.

Closed on : DECEMBER 5, 2025

Pronounced : DECEMBER 24, 2025

sa_mandawgad 1 of 14

::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:25:34 :::

IA(L)-36005-2025.doc

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 non

sa_mandawgad 2 of 14

::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:25:34 :::

IA(L)-36005-2025.doc

impleadment 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 afodavit 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 the

sa_mandawgad 3 of 14

::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:25:34 :::

IA(L)-36005-2025.doc

Defendants’ contention of the license terms being unreasonable

which amounts to refusal to allow