Phonographic Performance Limited v. Music Broadcast Pvt Limited & Anr

ORDER %

03.12.2013 Cav. No.1103/2013 Since there is representationon behalfof the respondents,the caveat stands discharged. CM Nos. 19236/2013& 19237/2013(bothapplicationsfor exemption^ Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions. The applicationsstanddisposedof FAO(OS) 561/2013 & CM 19235/2013rstav^ This appeal is directedagainstthe order dated 18^ November,2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No. 2119/2013 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. and lANo.17621/2013(u/O.XXXIXR 1&2 CPC). In the presentappeal, the only pointthat has been urgedbeforeus isthatthe learnedSingleJudge has arrivedat a conclusionthat the OriginalSide of the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed on behalf of the respondentNo.l/plaintiff It is the contentionof Mr. Nigam, learnedsenior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that this Court would not have territorialjurisdiction in this matter inasmuchas, the plaintiff concernsitself with the cancellation of compulsory licences. He referred to the decision in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Asencies, Salem : (1989) 2 SCC 163 wherein in paragraph 15,it has been observedthat in case of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where a suit would lie. According to Mr. Nigam, the cancellation notices were not only received in Mumbai itself by the respondent No.l but had also been issued by the appellant/defendantNo.2 in Mumbai and, therefore, it is only the courts at Mumbai which would have jurisdiction. On the other hand, Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.l submitted that this Court would certainly have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as, a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. In support, he submitted that the compulsory licences which are the subject matterofthe suitwereissuedby the RegistrarofCopyrightsin Delhi. Apart from other circumstances,he submittedthat the respondentNo.1/plaintiff was also running a Radio Station at Delhi. Therefore, according to Mr.Sethi, the Courts in Delhi would have jurisdiction. He also submitted thatthe orderofthe CopyrightBoardwhereundercompulsorylicenceswere issuedwas alsopassedin Delhi. Inany event,we find from the impugnedorderitself,that the learned SingleJudge has observedin paragraph18 that anythingsaid in the order would not be an expressionof final opinion on the merits of this case. According to Mr. Sethi, the learned Single Judge has yet to decide, conclusively,as to whetherthis Courthas territorialjurisdictionor not and the next date ofhearingis fixed on 21®' January,2014. In view ofthe fact thatthe questionofterritorialjurisdictionis yet to be decidedby the learned SingleJudge, we refrainfrom makingany commentsthereonand directthe 4' partiesto awaitthe final decisionon the subjectby the learnedSingleJudge whenthematteristakenup on21.01.2014. In the meanwhile,ofcourse, as stated by Mr. Nigam, the appellant wouldfilethewrittenstatementand the replytothe lA 17621/2013. I' u With these observations,we dispose of the present appeal as not pressed at this stage. BADARDURREZ AHMED, J VIBHUBAKHRU.J DECEMBER 03,2013 'sn'

V' $-25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 561/2013 PHONOGRAPHICPERFORMANCELIMITED Appellant Through: Mr. ArvindNigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. NeerajKumarGupta,Adv. versus MUSICBROADCASTPVTLIMITED&ANR Respondents Through: Mr. SandeepSethi,Sr. Adv. with Ms.Meghna Mishra, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. ManmeetKaur, Advs. for R-l/MBPL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADARDURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU