2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
ANNAPURNA FILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-715/2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : 20th December, 2022 Judgment Delivered on : 06th January, 2023 + CS(COMM) 715/2022 and I.A. 21396/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC), I.A. 21397/2022 (for exemption from effecting advance service), I.A. 21428/2022 (O-I R-10 of CPC), I.A. 21429/2022 (for exemption from effecting advance service) and I.A. 21430/2022 (O-XXXIX R-2A of CPC)
GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashvardhan, Ms. Smita Kant, Ms. Rhia Marshall, Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Ms. Mansi Sood and Mr. Areeb Amanullah, Advocates versus ANNAPURNA FILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh and Mr.Abhinandan Gautam, Advocates for defendant No.1 and 4 Mr. Neel Mason, Mr.Vihan Dang and Ms.Varsha Jhavar, Advocates for defendant No.5 Mr.Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr.Randhir Singh, Mr. Raj Karan Sharma, Mr.Aditya Yadav, Mr.Prateek Singh, Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Mr.Anshul Malik and Ms. Romita Malik, Advocates for defendant No.6 Mr. Piyush Ranjan, Advocate for defendant No.12 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL Signature Not Verified
JUDGMENT
AMIT BANSAL, J.
I.A. 16789/2022 (u/O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC) and I.A. 19779/2022 (of the defendant no. 6 u/O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC)
1. By way of this judgment, I shall dispose of I.A. 16789/2022 filed on behalf of the plaintiff for grant of interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and I.A. 19779/2022 filed on behalf of the defendant no. 6 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC for vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction order passed by this Court on
14th October, 2022.
CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts as set out in the plaint are as follows:
2.1 The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of production, aggregation, distribution and monetization of music and entertainment content.
2.2 The defendant no. 1 company is engaged in the business of production, marketing and monetization of music and entertainment content. The defendants no. 2-4 are entertainment channels on the platform of the defendant no. 5. The defendant no. 5 is YouTube LLC, an online video sharing and social media platform. The defendant no. 6, Mr. Shatrughan Kumar @ Khesari Lal Yadav, is a famous actor/singer/dancer of the Bhojpuri Film Industry.
2.3 After detailed negotiations, the plaintiff company entered into a Production Agreement dated 27th May, 2021 (Original Agreement) with the defendant no.6 (hereinafter referred as ‘Artist’), effective from 1st June, 2021. The Original Agreement was for a period of 30 months.
Signature Not Verified
2.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement, 12 songs were delivered by the Artist to the plaintiff company and in respect of which, the plaintiff company paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the Artist on the basis of Rs.2,50,000/- per song. The balance amount was payable in terms of Annexure B to the Original Agreement and upon raising of invoice by the Artist, which the Artist failed to do.
2.5 The Artist committed breach of the terms of the aforesaid Agreement by releasing songs to the third parties in violation of the exclusivity clause under the said Agreement, which resulted in various notices being issued by the plaintiff company to the Artist, including invoking of the arbitration clause under the said Agreement. The aforesaid notices were duly replied on behalf of the Artist through his counsel.
2.6 The aforementioned differences were resolved between the parties, and an ‘Addendum to the Original Agreement’ was entered into between the parties on 7th February, 2022 (hereinafter referred as ‘Addendum’). The Addendum was also executed in Hindi and the Artist was duly represented through his counsel in the negotiation of the Addendum.
2.7 In blatant infringement of the copyright vested in the plaintiff company and the exclusivity/‘right of first refusal’ in favour of the plaintiff company, the Artist created content and allowed third parties, i.e., the defe