Delhi High Court: In an application filed by Saregama India Ltd. (‘Saregama’) against Emami Ltd. (‘Emami’) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for the grant of interim injunction, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. directed Emami to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs with the Registry of the Court within two weeks and stated that this was only an interim arrangement and that the Court would consider upon further hearing whether the amount to be deposited should be varied.
Background
The present suit was filed to restrain Emami from using the musical and literary works of the song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’ for the advertisement of its product, i.e., Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall Shampoo, without any license from Saregama.
Saregama submitted that it was the assignee of all the works including musical, literary, and sound recording rights in the impugned song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’ from the film ‘Naya Daur’ for the entire copyright term of sixteen years.
It was also submitted that the rights were assigned to Saregama by BR Films, the original producer of ‘Naya Daur’, vide agreement dated 17-10-1955. Saregama submitted that the terms of the said agreement were initially for two years and it was renewed for one more year on 22-07-1957.
BR Films also confirmed the rights in the sound recording, as well as the literary and musical works assigned to Saregama, vide letter dated 31-05-2007. This fact was also confirmed by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (‘IPRS’), a registered society for musical and literary works, vide certificate dated 09-11-2023.
It was submitted that Emami approached Saregama for a grant of license for the lyrics and musical composition of the song in question on 26-10-2023 and asked for copies of the documents showing Saregama’s ownership of the said works. Saregama responded to the email on 31-10-2023 asking Emami for details of the advertisement so that the appropriate quote could be shared.
Saregama submitted that Emami was also informed that the ownership documents were confidential and could not be shared with Emami at that stage since it was neither practical nor customary. Instead of replying to the email, Emami sent a letter on 08-11-2023 wherein it claimed to be seeking to locate the legitimate owner of the copyright in the lyrics and music composition of the song in question and challenged the rights of the plaintiff.
Saregama responded to the letter on 10-11-2023 wherein it reiterated its rights on its copyrighted works and shared the certificate from the IPRS showing Saregama as the owner of its copyrighted works. Further, through a letter dated 24-11-2023, Emami disregarded the IPRS letter and demanded that Saregama disclose its confidential documents.
Saregama relied upon Sections 22, 27, 51, and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) to claim its rights and also, submitted that as per Section 14(a) of the Act, Saregama had an exclusive right to reproduce or to make any sound recording in respect of its works. Thus, the act of the defendant amounted to infringement. Saregama contended that it came to know about the advertisement in June 2024 and had immediately approached the Court by filing the present case.
Emami submitted that the agreement dated 17-10-1955 assigned only sound recording rights to Saregama which had already expired, and while drawing the Court’s attention to Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, Emami stated that any right that Saregama had was only for sixty years beginning from 15-08-1957, when the movie was released. It was also submitted that the letter dated 31-05-2007 issued by BR Films was not an assignment agreement and that Saregama could not claim to be the owner of the song in question.
Analysis and Decision
The Court analyzed the matter and issued notice to Emami which was accepted by them and directed for the reply to be filed within four weeks and the rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.
The Court directed Emami to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the Registry of the Court within two weeks and directed Saregama to submit documents along with an affidavit with respect to the amounts which are charged by them regarding the grant of a license of a similar nature as in the present case.
Further, the Court directed that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs to be deposited by Emami was only an interim arrangement, and in case, after hearing the parties, it is found that the amounts to be deposited should be varied, the same shall be considered by the Court.
The Court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 08-08-2024 and to be listed before the Court on 19-09-2024.
[Saregama India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4596, Order dated 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiff — Sr. Advocate Gopal Jain, Advocate Ankur Sangal, Advocate Shashwat Rakshit
For Defendant — Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate Charu Mehta, Advocate Roohe Hina Dua, Advocate Harshit Khanduja
