Application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead Phonographic Performance Limited and Phonographic Digital Limited. Bench held licensing society is not a necessary party and dismissed application.
Application to implead respondents 5 & 6 dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.No.4235 of 2024
A.No.4235 of 2024 in C.S.No.31 of 2010
K.KUMARESH BABU.J.,
This application had been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules R/W Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC for the following relief:-
a) The above application should not be treated as an urgent?
b) To implead the respondents 5 & 6 proposed defendants 5 and 6 namely “Phonographic Performance Limited” and “Phonographic Digital Limited” in the above suit?
case?
submit that during the cross examination of PW-1, he had specifically indicated that they have licensed the commercial exploitation of the musical works to the respondents 5 & 6 herein and therefore, he had taken out the present application to implead them as party defendants to the Suit. He would vehemently contend that they are also necessary parties to establish the case of the defendants and also for implementation of the judgment and
1/5
A.No.4235 of 2024
decree that may be passed in the Suit. He would also contend that if they are
made parties, the extent of exploitation that had been made by the first respondent/plaintiff would also be ascertained and therefore he would pray this Court to allow the application and implead the 5th and 6th respondents as defendants in the Suit.
2/5
A.No.4235 of 2024
assigned the rights for exploiting the copy rights in the musical works owned by the first respondent. Hence, he would seek dismissal of the application.
3/5
A.No.4235 of 2024
ownership of the copy right continues to be with the owner and also a right to
exploit the said copy right, inspite of granting licence to such society registered under the Copy Rights Act.
Also for the reasons discussed above, I do not find that the respondents 5 & 6 are just, proper and necessary parties for deciding the lis raised in the Suit.
order as to costs.
21.10.2024
Pbn
Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No
4/5
A.No.4235 of 2024
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Pbn
A.No.4235 of 2024 in C.S.No.31 of 2010
21.10.2024
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Relief of impleadment of Phonographic Performance Limited and Phonographic Digital Limited as defendants in the suit should be allowed.
Whether said proposed respondents are necessary or proper parties in the suit filed for a bare injunction.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
KUMARESH BABU
First Respondent
Third Defendant
Phonographic Performance Limited
Phonographic Digital Limited
K.KUMARESH BABU
Pbn
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
