Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Lizard Lounge and ors.

Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs Lizard Lounge and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 02, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701906

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/701906
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Decided On: Jul 02, 2008
Case Number: IA 2399-2400/2006 in CS(OS) 1774/2005
Subject: Intellectual Property Rights

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 7 as well as the counsel appearing for the defendants 4 and 9 had raised the issue of maintainability of the present suit.

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property Rights
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 7, Rule 11; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 33, 34 and 61

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phonographic Performance Ltd.

Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.,; Pragyan Sharma and; Kanika Mehra

Respondent

Lizard Lounge and ors.

Advocate Naushad Alam, Adv. for Defendant No. 5, ; K.K. Sharma, Adv. for the Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, ;

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 7, Rule 11; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 33, 34 and 61
Reported In: LC2008(2)465

Excerpt

- - 7 as well as the counsel appearing for the defendants 4 and 9 had raised the issue of maintainability of the present suit.badar durrez ahmed, j.1. as indicated in the order dated 19.03.2008, the counsel appearing for the defendant no. 7 as well as the counsel appearing for the defendants 4 and 9 had raised the issue of maintainability of the present suit. the identical issue had been raised in a similar suit filed by the same plaintiff. detailed arguments had been addressed in an application under order 7 rule 11, cpc [ia no. 334/2005] in the said suit [cs(os) 1498/2004]. the counsel for the parties are the same and they reiterated the arguments made in that application for the present suit also.2. the said is 334/2005 has been allowed by a detailed judgment delivered today. the plaint in cs(os) 1498/2004 has been rejected. the following two questions had been considered in that application:1. whether, in view of the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the copyright act, 1957, a suit for infringement of copyright would be maintainable at the instance of a registered copyright society in the absence of the owner of the copyright?2. whether, in view of the provisions of section 61 of the copyright act, 1957, inasmuch as the owner of the copyright has not been made a party to the present suit, the same would be liable to be rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party ?by virtue of the judgment in is 334/2005, in answer to the said questions, it has been held that the suit at the instance of the registered copyright society (the plaintiff herein) would not be maintainable. the reasoning employed in that decision would apply with equal vigour to the present case. consequently, the plaint in the present suit is also liable to be rejected. it is ordered accordingly.3. all interim orders stand vacated and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.

Full Judgment

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. As indicated in the order dated 19.03.2008, the counsel appearing for the defendant No. 7 as well as the counsel appearing for the defendants 4 and 9 had raised the issue of maintainability of the present suit. The identical issue had been raised in a similar suit filed by the same plaintiff. Detailed arguments had been addressed in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC [IA No. 334/2005] in the said suit [CS(OS) 1498/2004]. The counsel for the parties are the same and they reiterated the arguments made in that application for the present suit also.

2. The said is 334/2005 has been allowed by a detailed judgment delivered today. The plaint in CS(OS) 1498/2004 has been rejected. The following two questions had been considered in that application:

1. Whether, in view of the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Copyright Act, 1957, a suit for infringement of copyright would be maintainable at the instance of a registered copyright society in the absence of the owner of the copyright?

2. Whether, in view of the provisions of section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957, inasmuch as the owner of the copyright has not been made a party to the present suit, the same would be liable to be rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party ?

By virtue of the judgment in is 334/2005, in answer to the said questions, it has been held that the suit at the instance of the registered copyright society (the plaintiff herein) would not be maintainable. The reasoning employed in that decision would apply with equal vigour to the present case. Consequently, the plaint in the present suit is also liable to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly.

3. All interim orders stand vacated and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2008 Same Parties Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs Lizard Lounge and ors. Same Subject Intellectual Property Rights Same Judge Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 7, Rule 11; Copyright A...

Intellectual Property Rights