VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED Vs. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Vodafone Idea Limited
Saregama India Limited
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate addresses on behalf of plaintiff in CS 210 of 2018. He refers to clauses (y), (c) and (d) (in that order) in section 2 of Copyright Act, 1957. He submits, separate works, literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, cinematograph films and sound recordings can have separate subsisting copyrights in them. Clauses (c) and (d) give meaning of artistic work and author. Defendant no.1 obtained licence in respect of sound recordings from its producer, being defendant no.1 in CS 23 of 2018. This licence really is, so far as Vodafone is concerned, a key for it to open the work, sound recordings, which incorporates in them, literary and musical work. For exploitation of literary or musical works incorporated in the sound recordings, Vodafone has to obtain licence from his client, which is a company as also duly registered under Copyright Act, 1957. He refers to section 33 and submits, there can be no dispute that only his client can grant licence in respect of works, literary or musical, since its members are the authors thereof. It also cannot be disputed that licences from his client have not been obtained for works incorporated in sound recordings, of which licence(s) have been obtained by Vodafone. He relies upon, inserted by amendment in year 2012, proviso under sub-section (1) of section 33, which is reproduced below:
"[Provided further that the business of issuing or granting license in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works incorporated in a cinematograph films or sound recordings shall be carried out only through a copyright society duly registered under this Act:
(2.) The society has no quarrel with defendant no.1 in CS 23 of 2018 (Saregama). Mr. Mitra elaborates by relying on said defendant's affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed on 16th July, 2018 and filed in that suit. He relies on, inter alia, sub-paragraphs (g) to (j) in paragraph 3 of said affidavit to point out, defendant no.1 therein (Vodafone) had suppressed this requisition made on it by Saregama.
(3.) Mr. Mitra will be further heard on adjourned date. Court would be interested in any judicial interpretation on the inserted by amendment proviso.
List on 20th June, 2018.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.