JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

I.A. 22658/2023 (Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC)

1. This judgment disposes of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] filed by defendant seeking rejection of the plaint in terms of proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 [‘the Act’].

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming to be the owner of copyright in more than 1,20,000 sound recordings including underlying literary and musical works assigned to it.

3. According to the plaintiff, defendant had obtained license fee from plaintiff and was disseminating the works on its channels. However, in 2017, the defendant refused to renew the license agreement but continued to illegally utilize the plaintiff’s works, constraining the plaintiff to file an injunction suit before this Court being CS(COMM) 57/2017. Directions were passed for the defendant to use the plaintiff’s works subject to payment of license fee.

4. Subsequently, the defendant issued 63 legal notices [from 23rd October to 26th October 2017] for around 105 cinematograph films to the plaintiff and other third parties claiming that they were the owners of the copyright in the sound recordings as well as literary and musical works.

5. Plaintiff replied to the legal notices between 30th October and 01st November 2017.

6. In context of these threats, plaintiff filed this suit titled under Section 60 of the Act seeking injunction against the defendant’s threats, as well as declaration that they were not infringers of defendant’s copyright and also that defendant did not own rights in the said works, and damages for losses sustained as a result of these threats.

7. On 03rd November 2017, counsel for defendant undertook that till the next date of hearing, they will not issue any further notices/letters to the plaintiff in that regard.

8. An appeal was filed by plaintiff before the Division Bench of this Court, and it was recorded that the defendant shall not issue any further notices to third parties alleging threats, till the date of a decision as to “the extension of enlargement of interim relief” before the Single Judge.

9. Defendant filed its written statement on 11th January 2018; plaintiff had filed its replication on 09th April 2018. Defendant then filed a suit for infringement of copyright being CS(COMM) 811/2018 against plaintiff on

16th April 2018.

10. Subsequently, counsel for defendant took an objection under the proviso to Section 60 of the Act, in that once the defendant had filed its suit, the plaintiff’s suit based on alleged threats by defendant could not subsist and should be rendered infructuous. However, no steps were taken by defendant to formally seek rejection of the suit. When the matter was taken up on 17th August 2023, in relation to consolidation of the suits, Section 60 proviso objection was again taken up by the defendant.

11. It transpired that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC or any other provision to that effect may need to be filed, to consider rejection of the suit. Subsequently, this application was filed.

12. For ease of reference, Section 60 of the Act is extracted as under:

“60. 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 2 [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 maki