- (1.) In a suit for infringement of copyright, the plaintiff has sought interim reliefs by this application. The application has been heard after completion of affidavits.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff is the owner of a large repertoire of literary, musical and other related works and sound recording in respect of several songs played in several films. He has submitted that, the defendant conducted various musical programs in its television channel and wrongfully and illegally caused performance of the songs of the plaintiff therefore infringing the copyright belonging to the plaintiff. He has drawn the attention of the court to the cease and desist notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. He has submitted that, in the reply the defendant initially claimed ownership over the sound and literary works comprised in the songs. Thereafter, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to produce documents of title. The defendant offered to negotiate. However, the defendant never made it convenient to meet the plaintiff and arrive at an amicable settlement. The defendant always avoided the plaintiff. According to him, since, the plaintiff is the owner of the sound recordings, the lyrics and the songs, the defendant could not have performed or allowed performance of such songs without the prior permission of the plaintiff. The defendant having done so, it should be restrained appropriately from repeating such infractions.
(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon Section 55 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and submitted that, since, the plaintiff is the owner and has the copyright of the sound recording, lyrics and music composed in the songs, there is a presumption existing in favour of the plaintiff. He has drawn the attention of the court to Section 31C of the Copyright Act, 1957 and submitted that, in the event, the defendant claims that, the defendant undertook version recording of the songs over which, the plaintiff has copyright, then, the defendant ought to have issued prior notice to the plaintiff which the defendant in the present case did not do so. Therefore, the defence of version recording if set up, is of no consequence. In support of his contentions, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon All India Reporter 1997 Calcutta Page 63 (Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Shanti Films Corporation and others).;