J U D G M E N T

% 12.05.2023

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff Ten Events & Entertainment, involved in providing event management services, under Section 601 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 342 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The lis, in a nutshell

2. As an event management enterprise, the plaintiff organises, among other things, wedding ceremonies in luxury hotels. In the course of such ceremonies, songs are played by disc jockeys (DJs), to accompany the festivities. The hotels have written to the plaintiff, requiring the plaintiff to obtain a license from Defendants 1 to 3, who claim to hold copyright in these songs. These communications, from 160. Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings. – Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit –

(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and (b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats:

Provided that this section shall not apply if the person making such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him.

234. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. – Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

the hotels to the plaintiff are, in turn, alleged, in the plaint, to have been issued on the basis of communications from Defendants 1 to 3 to the hotels, whereby Defendants 1 to 3 have called upon the hotels to ensure that any person, playing songs in which they hold copyright, obtains a license or a no objection certificate (NOC) from them before doing so. According to the plaintiff, no such license or NOC is required, in view of Section 52(1)(za)3 of the Copyright Act.

3. To clear the air, it becomes necessary to refer, even at this juncture, to a pointed assertion in the plaint, in support of which there is no factual material whatsoever. Para 14 of the plaint reads thus:

―14. Recently, the Plaintiff has been harassed by the illegal conduct of Defendants Nos 1 to 3, who have instructed Defendants Nos 4 to 8, and presumably, other hotel members of Defendant No. 9, to obtain and submit No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) from Defendants Nos 1 to 3 for any sound recordings played by the Plaintiff during the weddings at the hotel venues owned/operated by Defendant Nos 4 to 8, despite being informed that such usage is ―fair dealing‖ in terms of the provisions of the Act and is expressly excluded from the definition of infringing acts by virtue of Section

52(1)(za) thereof.‖

(Emphasis supplied)

There is no communication, or other material, to indicate that Defendants 2 or 3 ever communicated with the Hotels, to the effect that a licence/NOC would have to be obtained from them before their recordings were played in any wedding ceremony, or threatening them with liability or legal proceedings in the alternative. Defendant Explanation. – A trustee of property is a ―person interested to deny‖ a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and for