M/S ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. versus M/S SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 9 S.C.R. 165 
M/S ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. 
A 
\/. 
M/S SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2005) 
MAY 16, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
)c 
~ 
Copyright Act, 1957: 
S.31 - Interpretation of - S.31(2) refers to case falling 
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 and not clause c 
(b) thereof- In terms of s.31, Principles of Natural Justice are 
required to be complied with - The manner in which the Copy-
right Board dealt with the matter not approved - Order of the 
Board set aside and matter remitted to the Board for consid-
eration of the matter afresh on merit - Administrative Law -
D 
Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India - Arlie/es 
14, 19(1)(g). 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of purposive construction -Applicability of. 
E 
International conventions, covenants and resolutions: 
Applicability of for the purpose of interpreting domestic 
statute, would depend upon the acceptability of the conven-
tions in question - Where protection of human rights, envi-
F 
ronment, ecology etc. involved courts should not be loathe to 
refer to International Conventions. 
Marginal Notes: Where the statute is clear, marginal note 
may not have any role to play 
G 
Words & Phrases: 
'"' 
'Work', 'public', 'compensation', 'royalty' - Meaning of in 
the context of Copyright Act, 1957. 
165 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
First respondent is one of the leading music compa-
nies engaged in the production and/or acquisition of 
rights in sound recordings. It has copyright over a series 
of cassettes and CDs commonly known as T-series, con-
taining cinematographic films and sound recordings. 
B Appellant broadcasts under the brand name "Radio 
Mirchi". It is a leading FM radio broadcaster. Disputes and 
differences arose between the holding company of the 
first respondent and Phonographic Performance Ltd. 
(PPL) as regards the playing of the songs of which copy-
C rights belongs to the first respondent in their FM radio 
network. 
A suit was filed before the Delhi High Court for re-
straining the appellant from playing and broadcasting the 
music belonging to the first respondent on any of the 
D Radio Stations belonging to the appellant. 
Various Radio Stations including the appellant filed 
an application before the Copyright Board at Hyderabad 
in terms of Section 31 (1 )(b) of the Act for grant of compul-
sory license to all the radio stations. The Copyright Board 
E by a judgment and order dated 19.11.2002 fixed the stan-
dard rate of: 
Payment to be made at Rs.1200/needle hour during 
prime time. 
F 
For 12 normal hours = 60% of standard rate 
For 8 lean (night) hours = 25% of standard rate and 
respondents also directed to furnish a security/bank guar-
antee of Rs.20,00,000/- per radio station to PPL. 
G 
The Board also held that the same shall be opera-
tive for a period of 2 years and the matter shall be recon-
sidered again in September-October, 2004. Super Cas-
settes was not a party therein. The Board fixed royalties 
initially for a period of two years. An appeal thereagainst 
H was preferred before Bombay High Court and it is the 
ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK v. SUPER CASSETTE 167 
INDUSTRIES 
subject matter of C.A. No. 5181 of 2005. 
Appeals were filed before the Bombay High Court 
by the radio companies and PPL against the order dated 
19.11.2002. 
A 
13 Appeals in total were filed before the Bombay High B 
Court. The Bombay High Court by a common judgment 
and order dated 13.4.2004 in First Appeal Nos. 279-294 of 
2003, 421 of 2003 and 1573 of 2003 remitted the matters 
back to the Copyright Board for reconsideration and for 
fixation of license fees. 
c 
Appellant filed an application before the Copyright 
Board at Delhi, for grant of compulsory licence in terms 
of Section 31(1)(b) of the Act against Super Cassettes. The 
Application was allowed granting a compulsory licence. 
Appellant filed an appeal against the said order before D 
the Bombay High Court questioning the rates of compen-
sation only. The said appeal was tagged with various 
other appeals which had been filed 'b~fore the Bombay 
High Court against the said order passed by the Copy-
right Board at Hyderabad. 
E 
Respondents however preferred two-fold appeals 
before the Delhi High Court. By reason of the impugned 
judgment. dated 30.6.2004, the respondent's appeal has 
been allowed remitting the matter back to the Copyright 
Board to reconsider the applicati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.