Individual copyright owners may grant licenses under Section 30 independently of registered copyright societies.

The Plaintiff, a partnership firm in the music acquisition and production business, claimed exclusive copyright over the audio-visual recordings, sound recordings, and underlying works of two songs, “Nyaya Ellide” and “Omme Ninnanu” (“Original Works”)

These rights were allegedly acquired via an Assignment Deed dated 31.08.2020 from "Sangeetha"

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 unauthorizedly exploited these works in their film “Bachelor Party”

Although the Defendants initially approached the Plaintiff for a license in January 2024, they proceeded to release the film theatrically and on OTT platforms (Defendant No. 3, Amazon Prime) without securing one

On 12.08.2024, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction directing the Defendants to deposit ₹20,00,000

The Defendants sought a return of the plaint for lack of jurisdiction and a vacation of the injunction, while the Plaintiff filed for contempt due to the Defendants' failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated four weeks

Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which establishes a legal presumption of ownership in favor of the publisher/author named on the work unless proven otherwise

The Court relied on Section 30, affirming the right of an individual owner to grant licenses, and distinguished Section 33, noting that the restriction on the "business of licensing" applies to collective societies, not individual owners

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court applied Section 20(c) of the CPC and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, holding that the accessibility of infringing content on OTT platforms within the forum state confers jurisdiction

The Court followed the qualitative test for infringement established in Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. News Nations Network

The Court followed the jurisdictional principles for digital content in Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment

Finally, it applied Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC regarding the consequences of disobeying interim orders

The Court found that the Plaintiff established prima facie ownership through a valid chain of assignments, bolstered by the fact that the Defendants themselves had negotiated for a license, thereby recognizing the Plaintiff's rights

The Defendants' "de minimis" defense was rejected; the Court reasoned that the use was a "conscious creative call" essential to the script's emotional beat, making the qualitative significance more important than the temporal duration

Addressing Section 33, the Court distinguished Azure Hospitality, clarifying that the Plaintiff, as a record label and individual assignee, is not a "copyright society" and retains the right to license its own property under Section 30

On jurisdiction, the Court held that since the film was accessible and downloadable in Delhi via Amazon Prime, the cause of action (infringement) occurred within its territory

The Court further noted that the Plaintiff's valuation of damages at ₹2,00,01,000 was sufficient to meet the pecuniary threshold of a Commercial Suit

Regarding contempt, the Court held that the Defendants' "bona fide belief" that they did not need to comply while a modification application was pending was legally untenable; an order must be obeyed until stayed or vacated

It held that the Plaintiff is the exclusive copyright owner and that the Defendants' use was not de minimis

In light of the Defendants' belated deposit of ₹20,00,000, the Court directed the Registry to release said amount to the Plaintiff in lieu of a permanent injunction against the film's current exhibition

The Court found the Defendants guilty of willful disobedience of the 12.08.2024 order and, to purge the contempt, directed them to pay an exemplary cost of ₹5,00,000 to the Plaintiff within two weeks

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly