Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Chancery Pavilion, represented by its owner M/s Elixir Enterprises Hotels (P) Ltd., filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2014 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.617/2013. The trial court had allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the respondents (defendants) under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, thereby rejecting the suit. The appellant had originally filed the suit seeking a declaration that the appellant was not infringing any copyright of the respondents and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from threatening legal proceedings. The respondents, M/s Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. (IPRS), had allegedly sent notices claiming that the appellant's use of musical works in its hotel premises required a license from IPRS. The appellant contended that it was not using any copyrighted works and that the threats were groundless. The trial court, relying on Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, held that the suit was barred because Section 60 provides a specific remedy for groundless threats, and the appellant should have availed that remedy instead of filing a regular suit. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that Section 60 of the Copyright Act does not bar a suit for declaration and injunction; it merely provides an additional remedy. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not manifestly barred by law. Therefore, the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Bar under Section 60 of Copyright Act, 1957 - The trial court rejected the plaint holding that the suit was barred under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides a remedy against groundless threats. The High Court held that Section 60 does not bar a suit for declaration of non-infringement and injunction; it provides an additional remedy. The plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold unless it is manifestly barred. (Paras 1-10) B) Copyright Law - Groundless Threats - Section 60 of Copyright Act, 1957 - The section allows a person aggrieved by groundless threats of legal proceedings to sue for a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable and for an injunction. However, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for declaration of non-infringement and permanent injunction. The remedy under Section 60 is concurrent, not exclusive. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - The power to reject a plaint must be exercised only when the plaint on its face discloses that the suit is barred by any law. In the present case, the plaint disclosed a cause of action for declaration and injunction, and the bar under Section 60 was not apparent. The trial court erred in rejecting the plaint at the preliminary stage. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the appellant for declaration and injunction is barred under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.617/2013 on I.A.No.4, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 60 of Copyright Act
- 1957 provides a remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings
- but does not bar a suit for declaration of non-infringement and injunction
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC applies only when suit is barred by law
- maintainability of suit is to be decided at trial
- not at preliminary stage.
