AL HAMD TRADENATION vs PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024, I.A. 33181/2024 & I.A. 33182/2024 AL HAMD TRADENATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Ganju, Ms. Pallavi Shali, Ms. Sambhavi Mishra and Mr. Samanyu Sethi, Advs. M: 9560047212 versus PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Sucheta Roya, Mr. Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Mr. Shaurya Pandey and Ms. Ananya Mehan, Advs. M: 7761895769 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA JUDGMENT % 13.05.2025 MINI PUSHKARNA, J: 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”), read with Rule 6 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 (“Copyright Rules”), seeking grant of compulsory license and ascertainment of license rates, thereof. As per the petitioner, the respondent has sought to charge unreasonable and prohibitory licence fees towards its repertoire of sound recordings, which effectively entails refusal to publish/re-publish and/or allow performance of its works in public, on account of which, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024 Page 1 of 23 By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:13.05.2025 21:48:33 present petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 The petitioner, in the regular course of its business, was organising a corporate event for 50 persons on 14th July, 2024, at Hotel Lutyens in Delhi. While booking the hotel for the event, the petitioner was informed that it needs to take a license from the respondent for the music to be played in the event, and the license fee for 1-150 persons, would be Rs. 49,500/-. 2.2 The petitioner, thereafter, checked the website of the respondent and noted that the license fee for 1-150 persons, as per responden