IPRS drags Chancery Pavilion to Delhi HC; Karnataka HC upholds it

Bengaluru, NT Bureau: Rejecting an appeal filed by city hotel Chancery Pavilion, the High Court of Karnataka has said that it should fight out its case against the Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd (IPRS) in the Delhi High Court.

A city court had rejected Chancery Pavilion’s petition alleging that IPRS was trying to illegally extort money from it. But subsequently, IPRS had initiated proceedings in the Delhi court to recover money from the hotel for playing copyrighted songs.

Chancery Pavillion claimed that IPRS had issued threatening public notices in various newspapers, directing establishments and outlets which play pre-recorded music, to obtain necessary license from them.

However, the hotel obtained a license ‘in order to avoid harassment and pressure.’ IPRS allegedly sent a notice that the license given to the hotel had expired in December 2017 and it has to pay Rs.7,86,718.

A legal notice was issued in 2012. The hotel challenged this in a Bengaluru court which was rejected after which it approached the HC.

The IPRS contended that it administers public performance rights of musical works and associated literary works of its members comprising of authorcomposers of such musical and literary works and music publishers. Following the issuing of the notice, it had initiated action against the hotel in the High Court of Delhi in April 2013.

But the hotel had approached the court in Bengaluru and the Karnataka High Court in the meantime. Dhyan Chinnappa, the counsel for IPRS contended that ‘when once a suit has been filed by the defendant before the High Court at Delhi, seeking action against the appellant/plaintiff, the question of continuation of suit at Bengaluru would not arise at all.’

The hotel pointed out that under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, it had filed the suit after the threat posed by the alleged copyright owner. However, the HC pointed out that under the same proviso, the IPRS had initiated legal proceedings.

“The proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 would clearly indicate that the action contemplated under Section 60 shall not apply, if the person making such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him,” Justice V Srishananda said.

The hotel had approached the HC in 2015 and the judgement was passed recently. The HC clarified that it has not given its opinion on the merits of the case.

“Further, it is always open for the plaintiff to have its defence filed before the High Court at Delhi and get the suit decided on the merits of the matter and scope of the present appeal would not permit to address the rival contentions with regard to merits of the matter,” it said. (RFA 145/2015)