Disposed

Universal Music (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ld. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2019COMIP/20/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought leave to withdraw suit against defendants 2 and 3 following a settlement with defendant 1. The court dismissed the remaining suits against defendants 2 and 3 as withdrawn and recorded the consent terms between plaintiff and defendant 1, disposing of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Suit against defendants 2 and 3 dismissed as withdrawn; consent terms recorded; suit disposed of.

Universal Music (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Super… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

901.COMIP20.06.doc

¶2

1/11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶4

COMMERCIAL I.P.SUIT NO.20 OF 2006

¶5

Universal Music (India) Private Limited )....Plaintiff

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. & Ors. )....Defendants

¶8

Mr.Sandip Parikh a/w Mr.Ayaz Bilawal and Ms.A.Sayed I/by M/s.Bilawala and Co. for plaintiff.

¶9

[Ms.Sanjana Chatterjee-Assistant Legal Manager/authorized signatory of plaintiff present].

¶10

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh for defendant no.1.

¶11

Mr.Niranjan Vaghela I/by M/s.Pandya and Co. for defendant nos.2 and 3.

¶12

[Mr.Ajit Kohli-General Manager/authorized signatory of defendant no.1 present].

¶13

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 1.8.2019

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

At the outset, Mr.Parikh for plaintiff states that plaintiff and defendant no.1 have settled the suit and plaintiff does not wish to prosecute the suit against defendant nos.2 and 3 and seeks leave to withdraw the suit against defendant nos.2 & 3 before filing consent

¶16

terms between plaintiff and defendant no.1. Mr.Vaghela for defendant nos.2 & 3 states that defendant no.2 has composed music works of the Ghazals/Songs incorporated in the original sound recordings set out in Exhibit-A & D to the plaint and accordingly is the owner of the musical works. Mr.Vaghela also states that defendant nos.2 & 3 are entitled to payments from plaintiff and defendant no.1 KJ

¶17

901.COMIP20.06.doc

¶18

2/11

¶19

of royalties/dues under various agreements between plaintiff and defendant no.1.

¶20

Mr.Parikh and Mr.Singh for defendant no.1 obviously dispute the stand of Mr.Vaghela.

¶21

Mr.Parikh states, and rightly so, that consent terms is only between plaintiff and defendant no.1 and as suit against defendant nos.2 & 3 before filing consent terms is withdrawn, the consent terms will not be binding on defendant nos.2 & 3 and it is open for defendant nos.2 & 3 to take such steps in law as advised. I agree with Mr.Parikh.

¶22

Therefore, suit against defendant nos.2 & 3 dismissed as withdrawn.

¶23

The consent terms dated 29.7.2019 entered into between plaintiff and the only defendant who was originally defendant no.1, signed by the authorized signatory of plaintiff, defendant and their respective Advocates is taken on record and marked `X' for identification.

¶24

Order in terms of consent terms.

¶25

All statements accepted as undertakings and all undertakings given separately are also accepted and so ordered.

¶26

For ease of reference, consent terms is scanned and reproduced below :-

901.COMIP20.06.doc

3/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

4/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

5/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

6/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

7/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

8/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

9/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

10/11

901.COMIP20.06.doc

11/11

Suit accordingly stands disposed. Refund of court fees if

¶55

any, in accordance with Rules. Drawn up decree dispensed with.

¶56

All to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶57

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶58

Universal Music (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ld. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Universal Music (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ld. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Anr. Vs Jai Shree Kripa (P) Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Santosh Shyam Mogaveera and 2 Others Vs Nutrix Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U93000MH2012PTC234360

Neelkanth Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs T. Bhimjyani Realty Pvt. Ltd. Cin No U70100MH2011PTC222048

Ashok Kumar Kothari and 5 Others Vs Sanwarlal Agarwal and 4 Others

Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Nina Bandwagon Private Limited

Ismail Yakub Payak Vs Mukesh Chug and 2 Ors.