TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate court affirms lack of jurisdiction in royalty suit under Copyright Act Section 31.</h1> <h3>Music Choice India Private Limited Versus Phonographic Performance Limited</h3> Music Choice India Private Limited Versus Phonographic Performance Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit.2. Grant of compulsory license under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act.3. Interim relief pending the decision of the Copyright Board.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Try the Suit:The primary issue was whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning the fixation of royalty by the statutory board under Section 31 of the Copyright Act. The trial court concluded that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was impliedly barred by the Act, which is a self-sufficient code. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff, including declarations and injunctions, were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Copyright Board. The court emphasized that the substance of the claim, rather than the form of the suit, should determine jurisdiction. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, confirming that the suit was not maintainable as the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the Copyright Board.2. Grant of Compulsory License under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act:The plaintiff had filed an application with the Copyright Board for a compulsory license to broadcast sound recordings in the defendant's repertoire, which was pending for over two years. The Act authorizes the Board to fix reasonable royalty and other terms for such licenses. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's royalty demands were exorbitant and unreasonable. The court noted that the plaintiff's application for a compulsory license was pending before the Board, and the Board has the exclusive jurisdiction to grant such licenses. The court reiterated that until the Board grants the license, the plaintiff has no right to broadcast the defendant's sound recordings, and any such act without a license would constitute copyright infringement.3. Interim Relief Pending the Decision of the Copyright Board:The plaintiff sought interim relief to broadcast sound recordings upon an undertaking to pay the royalty determined by the Board. However, the court held that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to grant interim arrangements pending the Board's decision. The court emphasized that seeking such a remedy would bypass the regulatory and penal provisions of the Act. The court did not express an opinion on whether the Copyright Board could entertain an application for interim relief, leaving the matter open.Conclusion:The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to try the suit. The court confirmed that the exclusive jurisdiction to grant compulsory licenses under Section 31(1)(b) lies with the Copyright Board. The plaintiff was advised to pursue its application for a compulsory license with the Board and could apply for an expedited decision. The court refrained from commenting on the possibility of interim relief from the Board. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
TaxTMI 