THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 38715 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 38674 OF 2025 Phonographic Performance Limited …Applicant Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 38715 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 38674 OF 2025
Phonographic Performance Limited …Applicant Versus
Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited …Respondent
——————
Mr. Rahul Arora, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Mr. Asmant Nimbalkar, Mr. Hiten Wasan, Ms. Sheryl D’souza i/b Mr. D. P. Singh for Plaintiff.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 15th December, 2025. P. C. :
1. Interim Application has been preferred after notice to the Defendant for injunction restraining the Respondents from publicly performing or communicating in any manner whatsoever the sound recording of the songs assigned to the Plaintiff or allowing their premises to be used for the said purpose without obtaining the license in the sound recording from the Plaintiff and otherwise infringing the copyright.
2. Mr. Singh tenders the Affidavit-of-service which is taken on record. The Affidavit-of-service evidences that service has been effected upon. However, none appears on behalf of Defendants.
3. Mr. Singh would submit that the Plaintiff is the owner of copyright in the sound recordings repertoire on the basis of the assignment/exclusive agreements of the relevant copyright in its favour and is therefore, entitled to exclusively grant licenses for broadcast of sound recordings under Section 30 of Copyright Act, 1957. Drawing attention of this Court to the license earlier procured by the Defendant which expired on 3rd February, 2025, he submits that Defendant is well-aware that the license is required to be obtained before the sound recording is to be communicated to the public. He submits that as the license was not renewed, the representative of the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s premises in order to verify whether the sound recordings are unauthorizedly broadcasted and points out to the Affidavit dated 20th August, 2025 filed by the representative stating that on his visit, he found the sound recordings of the Plaintiff being played for commercial exploitation which has been video recorded.
4. The DVD of the aforesaid recording is tendered and the same is taken on record. Mr. Singh would submit that the right of the Plaintiff to issue license and to prevent the unauthorized broadcasting of the sound recording has been upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 24th January, 2024 as the objection therein was that the Plaintiff without being registered as Copyright Society could not claim an exclusive right on the sound recording. He submits that in a separate suit, the Delhi High Court held that in order to recover license fee, it was necessary for the Plaintiff therein to be registered as Copyright Society which was challenged before the Apex Court. He submits that the clarification was sought from the Hon’ble Apex Court and by order dated 19th June, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that the order of 21st April, 2025 would be binding inter se between the parties to the suit which was pending before the Delhi High Court. He submits that in view thereof, the decision of this Court has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action of infringement of copyright in the sound recordings.
5. The fact that the Defendant had obtained license from the Plaintiff for the purpose of communicating the sound recording to the public for commercial purpose prima facie constitutes an admission that the Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the sound recording on the basis of Assignment Agreement executed by certain music companies. That being the position, the Plaintiff is exclusively entitled to grant license for broadcasting the sound recording under Section 30 of Copyright Act, 1957. Though being aware of the said position,
Defendants chose not to renew the license which was expired on 10th April, 2020 and continued with the unauthorized broadcasting of sound recording in which the Plaintiff holds the copyright. The Affidavit of representative of the Plaintiff states that upon visit to the Defendant’s premises on 20th August, 2025, it was found that the sound recording in which the Plaintiff holds the copyright were being unauthorizedly broadcasted. At this stage, there was no response by the Defendant though being served. Prima facie, the Affidavit of representative of the Plaintiff will have to be accepted. Thus, the contention that the Defendants are unauthorizedly broadcasting the sound recordings of the Plaintiff are prima facie proved by the Affidavit when considered with the factum of previous license procured by the Defendant which has been expired and not being renewed.
6. In light of above, ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under:
“(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction against restraining Defendants, its office bearers, partners, directors, their servants, employees, agents, assignees, licensees, representatives, third-party event management companies, or otherwise and/or any person claiming through them or acting on their behalf, from publicly performing or in any manner communicating the sound recordings assigned and exclusively licensed to the Plaintiff or allowing their premises or any other premises under their control to be used for the said purposes, without obtaining non-exclusive public performance licence from the Plaintiff, or otherwise infringing the copyright in any work owned and protected by the
Plaintiff.”
7. List for further consideration on 12th January, 2026.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]