$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 02^nd March, 2022

Pronounced on: 09^th March, 2022

+

W.P.(C)-IPD 21/2021 & CM APPL.Nos. 28, 35, 17949 of 2021

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

+

W.P. (C)- IPD 41/2021 and CM No.27851/2021

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents

Presence : Mr.Rajiv Nayar and Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr Advocates with

Mr.Ankur Sangal, Mr.Saurabh Seth, Ms.Sucheta Roy,

Ms.Asavari Jain and Ms.Deboshree Mukherjee and

Ms.Trisha Nag, Advocates.

Mr.Harish V. Shankar, CGSC, Ms.S. Bushra Kazim and

Mr.Karan Chhibber, Advocates.

Mr.Jagdish Sagar, Advocate for R2/RMPL.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1.

Both the above captioned writ petitions are filed with the following

prayers:-

W.P.(C)-IPD 21/2021

2022:DHC:875

W.P.(C)-IPD 41/2021

2.

Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3.

The petitioner “Phonographic Performance Limited”, a company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred as PPL)

was a registered copyright society till the introduction of an amendment

in the Copyright Act in the year 2012. It introduced section 33(3A)

mandating “every copyright society already registered before the coming

of commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.”

4.

The petitioner being a copyright society was assigned copyright in

various sound recordings for communication to public in the areas of

public performance and broadcast. The Petitioner owned and/or

controlled the public performance rights of 350+ music companies, with

more than 3 million international and domestic sound recordings; being

an oldest and the largest copyright society in the country. The petitioner

represented about 80-90% of sound recordings ever created in the

country. The Petitioner served a useful public utility of acting as a “single

window” to various parties seeking license for authorised use of sound

2022:DHC:875

recordings and bring together the copyright owners and users across

various parts of India for better convenience and better administration.

5.

In the year 2012, the legal framework regarding copyright societies

underwent a sea change and the amended provisions of the Copyright

Act, especially Section 33(3A), required the existing copyright societies,

such as the Petitioner, to compulsorily re-register themselves under the

amended provisions within a period of one year from the date of

commencement of Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.

6.

On 14^th March 2013, the Copyright Rules, 2013 were introduced,

wherein as per Rule 47, a copyright society applying for re-registration,

had to file an application in Form IX as provided under the Rules within

a period of two months from the date of coming into force of the said

Rules. In view of the aforesaid, on 09.05.2013 (which is within one year

of the enactment of the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 and within two

months from the enactment of the Copyright Rules 2013), the Petitioner

filed an application for its re-registration as a copyright society.

7.

Even though there was a compulsion and onus upon the respondent

to decide re-registration application within two months, the Respondent

did not take any decision on the Petitioner’s application for re-

registration for over a year, which greatly impacted the Petitioner’s

ability to carry on its business. Therefore, in order to protect its business

and the rights of its members, the Petitioner began conducting its

business as a non-society and was compelled to file a request for the

withdrawal of its re-registration application on 20.05.2014, with an

intention to file an application for fresh registration at an appropriate

stage. However, vide its letter dated 20.11.2014