Allowed

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Antardhwani

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2021MFA/3972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Trial Court order denying a temporary injunction against the owner of premises (Respondent No.4), the High Court held that since a legal notice was issued to the owner prior to the suit and they permitted an infringing performance, the injunction should have been granted against them as well.

What did the court decide?

Temporary injunction granted in its entirety against Defendants 1 to 4 restraining them from engaging in or authorizing acts infringing the plaintiff's copyright.

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs… — Intellectual Property | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.3972/2021 (IPR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 208, GOLDEN CHAMBERS NEW ANDHERI LINK ROAD ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400 058.

¶8

ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: B I I T BUILDING, NO.257 1^ST FLOOR, 9^TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-11

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY RAJANNA K.T., S/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . ANTARDHWANI

¶13

AN ENTITIY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1SQ, FUIERN HABITAT OPP. BHAGINI RESTAURANT OUTER RING ROAD DODDANEKKUDI CIRCLE

¶14

¶15

MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-37 MANAGED BY MR. BIJU NAIR

¶16

2 . MR. BIJU NAIR AGE: MAJOR NO.1SQ FUIERN HABITAT OPP. BHAGINI RESTAURANT OUTER RING ROAD DODDANEKKUDI CIRCLE MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 37

¶17

3 . MS. RUNA SIKDAR AGE: MAJOR NO.1SQ FUIERN HABITAT OPP. BHAGINI RESTAURANT OUTER RING ROAD DODDANEKKUDI CIRCLE MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 37

¶18

4 . ACADEMY OF MUSIC CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL 16^TH CROSS, GD PARK EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03. … RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R3 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 27.08.2021; R4-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.3809/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.10), PARTLY ALLOWING I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39, RULES 1 AND 2 R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The appeal is listed for admission. This Court, vide order dated 03.09.2021, issued notice to the respondent No.4, against whom the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Inspite of service of notice on the counsel, who was appearing for respondent No.4 before the Trial Court as well as issue of hand summons to respondent No.4, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellantplaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff brought to the notice of this Court, paragraph No.12 of the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.3809/2019 declining the relief of temporary injunction against the respondent No.4 wherein, it is observed that, on perusal of the plain averments and I.A., it shows that the defendant No.4 being a owner of the memorial hall, it would be common that whoever seeks for the premises for cultural activities by paying the requisite rent, they would allow them to perform such events in their premises. It would be difficult for the defendant No.4, to enquire with the

¶25

¶26

event organizers as to whether they have any copyright license for conducting such events. Moreover, on perusal of the plaint averments, there appears to be no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.4. The primary allegations are against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that they are using defendant No.4 premises for conducting the events. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out a ground for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant No.4.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff would vehemently contend that, before institution of the suit, legal notice was issued to defendant No.4 with regard to the events performed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the premises belonging to the defendant No.4. When a legal notice was issued to defendant No.4, who being the owner of the premises in which the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are performing the activities and brought to the notice of defendant No.4 and when the Trial Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and passed an order of temporary injunction restraining them from either engaging themselves, or from authorizing or organizing an event wherein

¶28

¶29

the public performance of communication to the public of the plaintiff’s repertoire or works belonging to the plaintiff’s sister copyright societies of musical and literary works or any part of the same takes place, in any form including as part of sound recordings, or doing any other act infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in the said works, without obtaining a license from the plaintiff, the Trial Court ought to have considered the prayer granting the relief of temporary injunction in favour of respondent-respondent No.4 as well, who gave the premises to defendant Nos.1 to 3 to perform such cultural activities.

¶30

The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 with regard to the copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed which clearly says that, permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright. But, in the case on hand, before institution of the suit, the plaintiff has issued a legal

¶31

¶32

notice to respondent-defendant No.4, who gave the permission to defendant Nos.1 to 3 the place to be used for communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright, the Trial Court ought not to have declined the relief of temporary injunction against defendant No.4 as well.

¶33

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has committed an error in not granting the order of injunction against the respondent-defendant No.4. Hence, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. deserves to be allowed in its entirety granting the order of injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 4.

¶34

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Antardhwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Antardhwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Narayanaswamy Vs Sri P Muniyappa S/O Late Papaiah

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Hotel Roopa

Sri Gangaramaiah Vs Smt Chikkamma

Smt. Anitha Vs T S Venkatesha

Smt S K Sarojamma Vs Sri S N Kondanda Rama Reddy

Sri Choodegowda Vs Sri. Nanjundappa