PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY WESEEMUDDIN, S/O. FAHIMUDDING Vs. DREAM MERCHANTS, EVENTS AND ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR. RANJAN MALAKAR AN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Sri Shivraj N. Arali also undertakes to appear for 2nd Respondent. His submission is placed on record.

(2.) THIS appeal by Plaintiff is directed against order dated 23.7.2011 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS No. 26226/2011 dismissing IA No. 1 and thereby refusing to grant temporary injunction.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants, their agents, representatives, servants etc., from communicating to the public by whatsoever means the sound recordings administered by the Plaintiffs by playing the cassettes or CD's containing the sound recordings in their event/fashion show titled as "Bleaders Pride Bangalore Fashion Week 5th edition Winter Festive 2011 or otherwise organised by them between 28th July to 31st July 2011 at Hotel Crowne Plaza, Bangalore. It was contended in the suit that Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is also registered under Copy Rights Act, 1957. The Government of India has also issued a certificate of registration in favour of the plantiff under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. As many as 179 music companies are members of Plaintiff -society. These members of the Plaintiff -society have entered into agreement with the Plaintiff -society assigning or authorizing their rights in the sound recordings in favour of Plaintiff -society. Under the provisions of Copyright Act the Plaintiff -society is entitled to issue license to any person or persons who want to use, enjoy, exploit the sound recording of its members either by way of broadcasting or communicating to the public. 4.1. It was contended that Plaintiff came to know about Defendant conducting a Fashion Show in the premises belonging to the second Defendant between 28.1.2010 and 31.1.2010 and in the said Fashion Show, Defendants were playing the sound recordings of the members of Plaintiff society without obtaining necessary licence from the Plaintiff and as such Plaintiff is said to have filed a suit in 05:469/2010 against the Defendants for a decree of declaration that communication by the Defendants, the sound recording of members of Plaintiff society by way of playing cassettes, CDs, Audio visuals containing the sound recording as illegal and for permanent injunction restraining Defendants from sound recordings of the members of the Plaintiff society without obtaining necessary licence and for other reliefs. 4.2. Defendants entered appearance in the said suit i.e., OS 469/1990 and filed their written statement and objections to the application filed seeking order of temporary injunction. Defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and on the basis of rival contentions raised, trial court formulated points for its consideration and by order dated 28.1.2010 rejected IA -II. However, it directed first Defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,77,000/ -in court and it also directed in the event of audience exceeding 500 persons and duration exceeding 2 hours everyday for 4 days, events that can be calculated and adjusted for future and held Defendants are liable to pay or refund or as the case may be. That shall be in case of communicating sound records of the companies registered with Plaintiff in the events to be performed in the premises of second Defendant organised by 1st Defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, Plaintiff preferred an appeal before this Court, in MFA No. 1125/2010 and this Court after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, disposed of the appeal by holding that event has already taken place between 28.1.2010 and 31.1.2010. This Court directed the trial court to enforce its interim order dated 28.1.2010 and also take further steps pursuant to the joint memo filed by both the parties on the same day. In the course of the order, this Court has observed as under: