Calcutta High Court
Vodafone Idea Limited vs Saregama India Limited & Anr on 1 July, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
O-5
ORDER SHEET
GA 1068 of 2018
WITH
CS 23 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED.
Versus
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 1st July, 2019.
Appearance:
Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunabha Deb, Adv.
Mr. Deepan Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Jain, Adv.
Ms. Ashika Daga, Adv.
....for Vodafone
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Dey, Adv.
Ms. Adreeka Pandey, Adv.
....for Saregama India Limited
Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumya Roychowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Surajit Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kr. Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Himangsu Bagai, Adv.
Ms. Mudrika Khaitan, Adv.
....for IPRS
2
The Court: Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned senior advocate submits with
reference to prayers in Notice of Motion that prayer (b) concerns his client. The
prayer is reproduced below:-
"b) An injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from raising any
claim on the Petitioners including on account of royalties for the usage of the VAS Content as provided by the Respondent No. 1 under the said Agreements".
He submits, this prayer is illegal. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Indian Bank Versus Euro International Pte Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 Cal 200, paragraphs 11 to 18. Order of injunction restraining defendants from initiating proceedings on basis of bills of exchange, even in Courts of coordinate or superior jurisdiction, was found to be bad and without jurisdiction. The Division Bench relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Versus United Industrial Bank reported in AIR 1983 SC 1272, in regard to section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
He submits, interim order in terms of prayer (b) should be vacated as that is bad in law and also amounts to grant of compulsory licence. He relies on section 16 and 31 of Copyright Act, 1957, regarding copyright or any similar right in any work as can only be had under and in accordance with provisions of the Act. Clause (b) in sub-section (1) of section 31 is clear in this applying to sound recording.
He relies on judgment of a learned single judge of Bombay High Court in, inter alia, Notice of Motion (L) 197 of 2018 in Commercial Suit IP (L) 114 of 2018 (Tips Industries Limited Versus Wynk Music Limited and Another), to paragraphs 102 to 106. Several judgments of that Court were relied upon by the 3 learned Judge in making clear the view that jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be allowed to be invoked to short circuit statutory process of licensing and, therefore, Court would lack in its jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
List tomorrow.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) R.Bhar