IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  CS(OS) 871/2014
  
  THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD
  
  ..... Plaintiff
  
  Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Tanvi Misra and
  
  Mr. Raunaq Kamath, Advocates.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  GOODWIN JEWELLERS and ORS ..... Defendants
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   26.03.2014
  
  I.A. No.5617/2014 (for exemption)
  
  Allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.
  
  The application stands disposed of.
  
  C.S. (OS) No.871/2014
  
  1. Fresh plaint presented. It be checked and registered as a suit.
  
  2. Issue summons in the suit to the defendants through ordinary post,
  registered A.D. Cover, courier and e-mail, returnable before Joint
  Registrar on 5th May, 2014. Dasti as well.
  
  
  
  I.A. No.5616/2014 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)
  
  1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable before the Joint
  Registrar for the date fixed, i.e., 5.5.2014.
  
  2. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1
  and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for an ex parte ad interim injunction
  restraining defendant No.1, its agents, representative and all others
  acting for an on its behalf from performing in public or communicating to
  the public the plaintiff?s repertoire of works and restraining defendant
  Nos.2 and 3, their officers, servants, agents and representatives and all
  others acting for an on their behalf from permitting their premises to be
  used for communication to the public or public performance of the
  plaintiff?s repertoire of works comprising of musical and/or literary
  works of all its members and works of the plaintiff?s sister societies
  which it is authorized to administer in India.
  
  3. The plaintiff has the right to collect licence fees with respect to
  public performance of musical and literary works of its members and works
  belonging to its sister societies that it is authorized to administer in
  India. It is stated that in spite of having put the defendants to notice
  of the plaintiff?s rights and their duty to obtain necessary ?no
  objection certificate/licence? from the plaintiff in the event they
  intend to communicate to the public or publicly perform musical and/or
  literary works belonging to the plaintiff?s repertoire within their
  premises or event organized by them, the defendant No.1 in violation of
  the said rights had organized events titled ?Goodwin Mega Event? and
  ?Mega Event? within the premises of defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 26.1.2014
  and 23.2.2014 respectively wherein musical and/or literary works
  belonging to the plaintiff?s repertoire were played and performed without
  obtaining the requisite licence. It is further stated that the plaintiff
  has real and reasonable apprehension that its rights would continue to be
  infringed due to regular commercial activity of defendant No.1 in
  organizing musical events and live concerts to promote its business and
  expand its sales and similarly by defendant Nos.2 and 3 by permitting
  their premises to be used for profit for communication to the
  public/public performance of musical and/or literary works to be held
  
  within their premises. It is further stated that the injunction will neither restrict or cause inconvenience nor affect any lawful business of
  the defendants while it will safeguard the legitimate interest of the
  plaintiff company. It is contended that non-payment of the license fee
  by the defendants for the events being held by them would result in huge
  monetary loss to the plaintiff?s members and would have a cascading
  effect and would set a bad example for other licensees of the plaintiff.
  It is further contended that the actions of the defendants are causing
  harm and injury to the whole creative community, whose interests the
  plaintiff represents and the entire business model of plaintiff society
  which partly depends upon the license income from the use of its
  repertoire of copyright works.
  
  4. I have considered the submissions. I am of the view that the
  plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case. The balance of
  convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff will
  also suffer an irreparable loss in case the stay is not granted.
  
  5. Accordingly, defendant No.1, its agents, representative and all
  others acting for and on its behalf are restrained from performing in
  public or communicating to the public the plaintiff?s repertoire of works
  and restraining defendant Nos.2 and 3, their officers, servants, agents
  and representatives and all others acting for and on their behalf from
  permitting their premises to be used for communication to the public or
  public performance of the plaintiff?s repertoire of works comprising of
  musical and/or literary works of all its members and works of the
  plaintiff?s sister societies which it is authorized to administer in
  India without obtaining requisite public performance license from the
  plaintiff society which amounts to infringement of copyright.
  
  6. Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied within three days.
  
  7. A copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
  parties.
  
  
  
   V.K. SHALI, J.
  
  MARCH 26, 2014
  
  ?AA?