(1.) The Appellant has filed a commercial suit against the Respondents regarding the copyright of two music videos, "Pyar To Na Kaho" and "Lutti Heer". The Appellant has sought a declaration that Respondent No.1- Company owns the copyright and has prayed for an injunction against Respondent Nos.2 to 6. In the Interim Application taken out by the Appellant in the Suit, an interim order was passed by consent of parties. However, later on, upon an application filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Single Judge has varied the consent order. Challenging this order varying the earlier consent order, the Appellant is before us by this Commercial Appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(2.) The main grievance of the Appellant is the denial of opportunity by the learned Single Judge to file a reply and contest the application taken out by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for modification of the earlier consent order. The Appellant's prayer is to set aside the impugned order, grant time to the Appellant to file a reply to the application, and the application be re-heard. In view of this limited submission, we have considered the facts of the case to ascertain whether the Appellant's grievance is justified.
(3.) Mr. Aman Chabra, the Appellant- Plaintiff and Ms. Ragini Subhash Tandan, Respondent No.2- Defendant No.2, have set up Company TRAC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.1- Defendant No.1. The Company was set up to produce sound, audio, music videos and to promote/publish the same. The Appellant and Respondent No.2 each hold 50% shares in Respondent No.1- Company. Shiv Tandon, Respondent No.3- Defendant No.3, is the brother of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.4- Defendant No.4 is the friend of the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Similarly, Respondent/Defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 are individual entities in the same profession whom the Appellant joined as parties to the suit as the Appellant has alleged that they have colluded with Respondent Nos.2 and 3.