Debangsu Basak JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J.
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 MANU/WB/0008/1997 : All India Reporter 1997 Calcutta Page 63 (Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Shanti Films Corporation and others).
4. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the plaintiff is yet to establish title in respect of the songs concerned. He has submitted that, there are no documents placed on record to suggest let alone establish that, the plaintiff has copyright over the songs in the form of sound recording or lyrics or music. He has drawn the attention of the court to the averments made in the petition and submitted that, the plaintiff is not claiming to be the owner of the songs or having copyright over the sound recording, lyrics and the music of the songs concerned. In absence of such ownership, the plaintiff is not entitled to call upon the defendant to restrain itself from allowing the performance of such songs in the television channel of the defendant. He has relied upon Sections 19, 45, 48 and 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in support of his contentions. He has submitt........