FREE access to all copyright case briefs
Sign up now !
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
[(2008) 13 SCC 30, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 951]
Note: This case and Civil Appeal Nos. 5178-83 of 2005 involves the interpretation of Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the court dealt with these cases collectively.
Coram: Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.S. Panta
Forum: Hon’ble Supreme Court
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2005 with Nos. 5178-83 of 2005.
Date of Decision: May 16, 2008.
Conclusion
right-arrow

Facts:

  • The Appellant, Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (ENIL), operated under the brand "Radio Mirchi" as a prominent FM radio broadcaster.
  • The first Respondent, a leading music company, held copyrights over a series of T-series cassettes, CDs, cinematographic films, and sound recordings.
  • The Appellant was granted a license to run a private FM broadcasting service in 12 cities after paying a substantial license fee, alongside several other bidders. However, the respondent was not a member of the appellant's society and was found to be broadcasting songs copyrighted by Super Cassettes Industry Limited (SCIL), a member of the Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) copyright society. This led to a copyright infringement against SCIL.
  • The Appellant, mistakenly believed it was part of PPL, played SCIL's music in its Indore and Ahmedabad stations, paying royalties to PPL as per a Calcutta High Court order. Upon realizing it was not a PPL member, the Appellant attempted to secure a license directly from SCIL, but negotiations failed.
  • Consequently, a lawsuit was filed in the Delhi High Court to restrain the Appellant from playing and broadcasting SCIL's music on any of its radio stations.

Background/ Procedural Posture:

  • The matter was first filed by the Appellants on 28-01-2003 before the Copyright Board of Delhi for the grant of compulsory license against the Respondents.
  • The Appellants were granted a compulsory license. They appealed the said order before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court questioning the rates of compensation. The Respondents preferred two-fold appeals before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Respondent’s appeal was allowed, remitting the matter back to the Copyright Board to reconsider the application of the Appellant for the grant of compulsory license.
  • The High Court further directed that the Appellant must file an undertaking that it would not broadcast the sound recordings of the Respondent.
  • Appellant had filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal giving rise to this appeal in the Supreme Court.

Main Issue:

Whether a compulsory license can be issued to more than one person under section 31(2) of Copyright Act, 1957?.

Go Top
right-arrow