Full Text
Translation output
V'
$-25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 561/2013
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED Appellant
Through : Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Adv.
$-25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 561/2013
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED Appellant
Through : Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
MUSIC BROADCAST PVT LIMITED &ANR Respondents
Through : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Meghna Mishra, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. ManmeetKaur, Advs. for
R-l/MBPL.
Through : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, 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
03.12.2013 Cav. No.1103/2013 Since there is representation on behalf ofthe respondents, the caveat stands discharged.
CM Nos. 19236/2013 & 19237/2013(both applications for exemption^
Allowed, subject to all justexceptions.
The applications stand disposed of
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
03.12.2013 Cav. No.1103/2013 Since there is representation on behalf ofthe respondents, the caveat stands discharged.
CM Nos. 19236/2013 & 19237/2013(both applications for exemption^
Allowed, subject to all justexceptions.
The applications stand disposed of
FAO(OS) 561/2013 & CM 19235/2013rstav^
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18^ November, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No. 2119/2013
2013:DHC:7299-DB and lANo.17621/2013(u/ O.XXXIX R 1&2 CPC). In the present appeal, the only point that has been urged before us isthat the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the Original Side of the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed on behalf of the respondent No.l/plaintiff It is the contention of Mr. Nigam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that this Court would not have territorialjurisdiction in this matter inasmuch as, the plaintiff concerns itself 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 ofrepudiation 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 matter ofthe suit were issued by the Registrar ofCopyrights in Delhi. Apart from other circumstances, he submitted that the respondent No.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 that the order ofthe Copyright Board whereunder compulsory licences were issuedwas alsopassedin Delhi.
Inany event, we find from the impugned order itself, that the learned
Single Judge has observed in paragraph 18 that anything said in the order would not be an expression of final opinion on the merits of this case.
According to Mr. Sethi, the learned Single Judge has yet to decide, conclusively, as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction or not and the next date ofhearing is fixed on 21®' January, 2014. In view ofthe fact that the question ofterritorial jurisdiction is yet to be decided by the learned
Single Judge, we refrain from making any comments thereon and direct the
4' parties to await the final decision on the subject by the learned Single Judge when thematter istaken up on21.01.2014.
In the meanwhile, ofcourse, as stated by Mr. Nigam, the appellant would file the written statement and the reply tothe 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'
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18^ November, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No. 2119/2013
2013:DHC:7299-DB and lANo.17621/2013(u/ O.XXXIX R 1&2 CPC). In the present appeal, the only point that has been urged before us isthat the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the Original Side of the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed on behalf of the respondent No.l/plaintiff It is the contention of Mr. Nigam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that this Court would not have territorialjurisdiction in this matter inasmuch as, the plaintiff concerns itself 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 ofrepudiation 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 matter ofthe suit were issued by the Registrar ofCopyrights in Delhi. Apart from other circumstances, he submitted that the respondent No.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 that the order ofthe Copyright Board whereunder compulsory licences were issuedwas alsopassedin Delhi.
Inany event, we find from the impugned order itself, that the learned
Single Judge has observed in paragraph 18 that anything said in the order would not be an expression of final opinion on the merits of this case.
According to Mr. Sethi, the learned Single Judge has yet to decide, conclusively, as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction or not and the next date ofhearing is fixed on 21®' January, 2014. In view ofthe fact that the question ofterritorial jurisdiction is yet to be decided by the learned
Single Judge, we refrain from making any comments thereon and direct the
4' parties to await the final decision on the subject by the learned Single Judge when thematter istaken up on21.01.2014.
In the meanwhile, ofcourse, as stated by Mr. Nigam, the appellant would file the written statement and the reply tothe 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'
JUDGMENT