LexSUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. versus MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 209 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. V. MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4196-4197 of 2012) MAY 4, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]* Copyright Act, 1957 - s. 31(1)(b)- Powers under- Scope A B of - Power of Copyright Board - To pass ad interim order- C In a pending complaint u/s. 31 - Held: Section 31 contemplates final relief - The statute does not vest the Copyright Board power to grant interim order - To grant interim compulsory licence during the pendency of the complaint would amount to final relief at the interim stage. D The question for consideration in the present appeals was whether on a complaint made to the Copyright Board uls. 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the said Board under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) can pass an interim order in the pending complaints. Allowing the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1. The language used in Section 31 of Copyright Act, 1957 clearly contemplates a final order F after a hearing and after holding an inquiry to see whether the ground for withholding of the work from the public was justified or not. There is no hint of any power having been given to the Board to make interim arrangements, such as, grant G of interim compulsory licences, during the pendency of a final decision of an application. [Para 38) [232-B-C] * Judgment Pronounced by J. Chelameswar, J. made non-reportable. 209 H 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A 2. The power being sought to be attributed to the Copyright Board involves the grant of the final relief, which is the only relief contemplated u/s. 31 of the Copyright Act. Even in matters under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of CPC an interim relief granting B the final relief should be given after exercise of great caution and in rare and exceptional cases. In the instant case, such a power is not even vested in the Copyright Board and hence the question of granting interim relief by grant of an interim compulsory licence cannot arise. c To grant an interim compulsory licence during the stay of the proceedings would amount to granting the final relief at the interim stage, although the power to grant such relief has not been vested in the Board. [Para 42) [233-D-H] D 3. A Tribunal is a creature of statute and can exercise only such powers as are vested in it by the statute. Tribunals discharging quasi-judicial functions and having the trappings of a Court, are generally considered to be vested with incidental and ancillary powers to discharge E their functions, but that cannot surely mean that in the absence of any provision to the contrary, such Tribunal would have the power to grant at the interim stage, the final relief which it could grant. Such incidental powers could at best be said to exist in order to preserve the F status-quo, but not to alter the same, as will happen, if an interim compulsory licence is granted. If the legislature had intended that the Copyright Board should have powers to grant mandatory injunction at the interim stage, it would have vested the Board with such authority. G [Paras 39, 43 and 44) [232-D; 234-A-D] Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225: 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136; Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. 2011 (9) H SCALE 287; Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh (1977) 1 sec 57: 1977 (1) SCR 125 - relied on. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MUSIC 211 BROADCAST PVT. LTD. Income Tax Officer vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (1969) 2 A SCR 65;Al/ahabad Bank, Calcutta vs. Radha Krishna Maity and Ors. (1999) 6 sec 755: 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 290; Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Grapco Industries Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 710: 1999 (3) SCR 759 - distinguished. B Music Choice India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Phonographic Performance Ltd. (2009) 39 PTC 597; Sham Lal vs. State Election Commission AIR 1997 P&H 164; Lingamma vs. State of Kamataka AIR 1982 Karnataka 18; Transcore vs. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC125: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 785; C Entertainment Network (India) Limited vs. Super Cassette Industries Limited (2008) 13SCC 30: 2008 (9) SCR 165 - referred to. Case Law Reference: (2009) 39 PTC 597 AIR 1997 P&H 164 Referred to. Referred to. AIR 1982 Karnataka 18 Referred to. 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 785 Referred to. 2008 (9) SCR 165 Referred to. 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136 Relied on. 2011 (9)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.