1

ITEM NO.4                 COURT NO.2             SECTION XII

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).5727-5735/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 22/12/2010 in  MP No. 1/2010 &  MP No. 2/2010 & CMA No. 3293/2010 & CMA No. 3382/2010 & CMA No.  3383/2010  &  CMA  No.  3384/2010  &  CMA  No.  3385/2010  &  CMA  No.  3387/2010  &  CMA  No.  3388/2010  &  CMA  No.  3389/2010  &  CMA  No.  3390/2010  of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD.ETC.ETC.             Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK(INDIA)LTD.ETC.ETC.          Respondent(s)

(With  appln(s)  for  exemption  from  filing  c/c  of  the  impugned  Judgment and permission to file synopsis and list of dates and with  prayer for interim relief and office report ))

WITH SLP(C) NO. 1461-1462 of 2011 (With  appln(s)  for  exemption  from  filing  c/c  of  the  impugned  Judgment and with prayer for interim relief) SLP(C) NO. 1782-1783 of 2011 SLP(C) NO. 1841-1842 of 2011 SLP(C) NO. 1888-1889 of 2011 [(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl.documents on record  and with prayer for interim relief and office report)] SLP(C) NO. 1543 of 2011 SLP(C) NO. 1702 of 2011 [(With  appln.(s)  for  exemption  from  filing  c/c  of  the  impugned  judgment and with prayer for interim relief and office report)]   

Date: 05/04/2011  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv.  Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.

2

Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Adv.  Mr. Shekhar Menon, Adv.  Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Adv.  

                    Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv.-on-record.

Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Sr. Adv.  In SC 1461-62, Ms. Prathiba M.Singh, Adv.  1782-83,1841-42 Mr. Naval Agarwal, Adv.  & 1888-89 all of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.  2011                 Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.-on-record.         Mr. Deepak Gogia, Adv.  

Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Adv.  

                    M/S. Karanjawala & Co.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Sr. Adv.  Ms. Prathiba M.Singh, Adv.  Mr. Naval Agarwal, Adv.  Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.  

/R1 in               Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.-on-record. SC 5727-35/11 Mr. Deepak Gogia, Adv.  

Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Adv.  

Mr. Dushayanta Dave, Sr. Adv.  In SC 5727-35/11 Mr. K.Datta, Adv.  

Mr. Diggaj Pathak, Adv.                       Mr. Abhay Kumar ,Adv.-on-record.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Meghnaq Mishra, Adv.  Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv.  Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.  

                    For M/S. Karanjawala & Co.,Advs.

Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Neil Hildreth, Adv.  Dr. Kishore Kunal, Adv.  Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.   

                    Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv.-on-record Mr. Gaichang Gangmei, Adv.  Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Adv.   

                    Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv.-on-record.  

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

SLP(C)Nos.5727-5735  of  2011,  have    been

3

filed against the  order dated 22nd December, 2010,  

passed  by  the  Madras  High  Court  in  several  

miscellaneous petitions in CMA Nos.3293, 3382 to  

3385,  3387  to  3390  all  of  2010,  rejecting  the  

prayer made therein by the appellants for interim  

stay of the order passed by the Copyright Board,  

which is the subject-matter of challenge in the  

pending appeals.

2. Since  we  are  mainly  concerned  with  the  

refusal  of  the  courts  below  to  pass  interim  

orders,  during  the  pendency  of  the  appeals,  we  

shall briefly indicate the circumstances in which  

these Special Leave Petitions came to be filed and  

are being considered today.    

3. It  appears  that  in  relation  to  various  

applications  made  under  Section  31(1)(b)  of  the  

Copyright  Act,  1957,  for  grant  of  licence  for  

broadcasting  and  sound  recording,  the  Copyright  

Board had by an order dated 19th November, 2002,  

determined  the  interim  standard  rate  of  royalty  

at  the  rate  of  Rs.1200/-  per  needle  hour  and  

certain  other  directions  were  also  given.   The  

said order resulted in overall payment of Rs.660/-  

per needle hour by way of royalty.   The said  

order  of  the  Copyright  Board  was  questioned  by  

both the parties in appeal and cross appeal before

4

the Bombay High Court, which by an order dated 13th  

April, 2004, set aside the order of the Copyright  

Board,  allowed  the  appeal  as  well  as  the  cross  

appeal in part, and remitted the matter  to the  

Copyright Board for reconsideration and fixation  

of royalty payment in terms of Section 31 of the  

aforesaid Act.

4. The matter was  carried to this Court in  

Civil Appeals Nos.5114, 5178-5180, 5181, 5182 and  

5183, all of 2005.   By judgment dated 16th May,  

2008,  this  Court  declined  to  lay  down  the  

principles   regarding  evaluation  and  upheld  the  

order passed by the Bombay High Court in a similar  

matter, remitting the matter back to the Board for  

the said purpose.

5. However, this Court also indicated that it  

did not approve the manner in which the Board had  

dealt with the matter and accordingly set aside  

the order of the Board and once again remitted the  

matter to the Board for fresh consideration  on  

merit.    The  appeals  were  allowed  with  the  

aforesaid directions.

6. Pursuant  thereto, the Copyright Board took  

up various matters and after a detailed discussion  

and upon taking evidence, it indicated that though  

the Government in the second phase of its policy

5

had  gone  for  a  percentage  of  gross  revenue,  it  

preferred linkage with advertisement revenue over  

gross revenue.  Accordingly, in exercise of the  

powers conferred on it under Section 31(1)(b) of  

the Copyright Act, 1957, the Board directed the  

Registrar of the Copyright Board to grant to the  

complainants  separate  licences  for  communicating  

the  work  recorded  in  sound  recordings  in  the  

repertoire, present and future, of the respondent  

to  the  public  by  broadcast  on  revenue  sharing  

basis,  subject to certain conditions, including  

payment of 2% of the net advertisement earnings of  

each  FM  Radio  station  accruing  from  the  radio  

business only for that radio station.    

7. Having considered the submissions made on  

behalf of the respective parties, and taking into  

consideration the fact that the subject-matter of  

challenge in these Special Leave Petitions  is an  

order passed by the High Court refusing to grant  

interim stay of the order of the Copyright Board  

and  the  subject-matter  of  the  appeal  pending  

before the High Court is the method to be adopted  

for assessing the compensation payable, we are of  

the  view  that  no  interference  is  called  for  at  

this stage in these Special Leave Petitions.  This  

Court had on the earlier occasion set aside the

6

earlier  fixation  of  compensation  and  the  entire  

matter was at large before the Copyright Board.  

The relief sought for by the petitioners herein in  

the application for interim orders before the High  

Court was only for a stay of the   order passed by  

the Copyright Board and not for any direction to  

pay compensation at any particular rate.   In our  

view, expressing any opinion in the matter at this  

stage,  would  be  improper  on  our  part  since  the  

aforesaid question is pending decision in the High  

Court.    At  the  same  time,  since  the  matter  

involves a large number of stake-holders, it will  

be   in  the  interest  of  all  concerned  if  the  

appeals  are  decided  early  by  the  Madras  High  

Court.       We, therefore, request the High Court  

to  take  up  these  pending  appeals  on  an  urgent  

basis and to ensure that the same are disposed of,  

if possible, within two months from the date of  

communication of a copy of this order.  

8. We make it clear that while disposing of  

the  appeals,  the  High  Court  should  not  be  

influenced by any of the observations  made in the  

order impugned before us, since that was only for  

the purpose of disposing of the applications for  

stay  which  had  been  filed  on  behalf  the  

appellants.  

7

9. During  hearing  of  the  Special  Leave  

Petitions,  we  were  informed  that  Transfer  

Petitions had been filed by the respondents herein  

for  transfer  of  the  pending  appeals  before  the  

Madras High Court to this Court, but that while  

admitting  the  Transfer  Petitions,  we  had  not  

granted any stay.   Consequently, the pendency of  

the Transfer Petitions will not prevent the High  

Court from disposing of the pending appeals.

10. The  Special  Leave  Petitions  

(SLP(C)Nos.5727-5735 of 2011) are disposed of.

11. The  other  Special  Leave  Petitions,  which  

have  also  been  listed  today,  be  listed  on  21st  

April, 2011.     

(Sheetal Dhingra) Court Master

(Juginder Kaur) Court Master