Delhi High Court: An application was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in respect of the suit filed by plaintiff seeking inter alia declaration that plaintiff had rights, title and interest in the literary works, musical works, sound recordings and cinematographic film created/produced by Defendant 1 with exclusively and/or collaboration with any party during the term of agreement dated 15-12-2019 and addendum dated 05-01-2021, and permanent injunction restraining defendants and all other persons acting on his behalf and for him from infringing the copy right which accrued to the benefits of plaintiff by virtue of the above-mentioned agreements. Anish Dayal, J., opined that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for ex-parte ad interim relief and thus restrained Defendant 1 from engaging with third party/entities for the purpose of making any sound recording/cinematographic film/musical work created by Defendant 1 and any performance by Defendant 1, without the prior written approval of plaintiff.
Plaintiff, owner of a music label, “Saga Music”, was a company incorporated in India that claimed to be a music brand in Punjabi music and film industry and enjoyed substantial goodwill and reputation in the market. Defendant 1 was a singer, song writer and music composer working under the screen name “Bohemia” in the Punjabi Music Industry, and a resident of USA. Defendants 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were other music producers/studios which plaintiff alleged to be in violation of the above-mentioned agreement and had produced certain sound recordings and albums with Defendant 1 and disseminated the same.
Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that as per agreement dated 15-12-2019, titled as “Exclusive Talent Engagement Agreement”, Defendant 1 had agreed to work with plaintiff for future projects on terms and conditions as stated in the agreement. The agreement’s terms provided that Defendant 1 would be exclusively engaged with plaintiff for 45 months and during the said term, he must perform, sing, and act for plaintiff exclusively and not for any third party/parties worldwide. Further, the agreement stated that if any third party wished to engaged Defendant 1, it would contact Defendant 1 who would in turn contact plaintiff and the deal would be routed through plaintiff only. Further, any performance in the world by Defendant 1 during this term would be managed by plaintiff and the revenues would be mutually distributed between the parties as agreed. Defendant 1 agreed that plaintiff would be the sole and exclusive owner for all Intellectual Property Rights including copy right in the songs and performances of Defendant 1 which would be performed by him during the term of the aforesaid agreement.
An Addendum was executed between the parties which altered certain deliverables and payment terms. However, the essential agreement relating to Intellectual Property Rights remained unchanged. It was stated in the plaint that Defendant 1 failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to make any performance or deliver any sound recording or visual recording to plaintiff, despite an advance payment having been made to Defendant 1. There were various incidents of breach by Defendant 1 of the express terms of the agreement including not updating plaintiff regarding his musical tours and releasing multiple audio songs on YouTube Channel. Defendant 1 continued to release songs by collaborating with other labels, particularly Defendants 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, without taking written approval from plaintiff or routing the deal through plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, lost the ability to monetise the performances despite categorical clauses in their favour in the agreement.
On 27-08-2021, Defendant 1 served a legal notice to plaintiff claiming that plaintiff did not perform his part of the agreement and was supposed to make payments to Defendant 1, which have not been paid. Therefore, plaintiff’s counsel submitted that there was no basis for lack of performance on plaintiff’s part, whereas, on the other hand, there were serious and continued breaches by Defendant 1.
It was further submitted that Defendant 1, with an implied reference to plaintiff, was posting defamatory content relating to his contract with plaintiff on social media which invited adverse comments specifically targeted at plaintiff. It was contended that despite non-performance on his part of the agreement by Defendant 1, plaintiff was subjected to disparagement and adverse comments which had caused him irreparable harm in the music industry.
The Court opined that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for ex-parte ad interim relief as the balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and irreparable damage would be caused in case certain directions were not passed in plaintiff’s favour.
Thus, the Court restrained Defendant 1 from engaging with third party/entities for the purpose of making any sound recording/cinematographic film/musical work created by Defendant 1 and any performance by Defendant 1, without the prior written approval of plaintiff. The Court further restrained Defendants 1, 2, 3, from posting, uploading, sharing, e-sharing and/or publishing or causing any defamatory, disparaging, misleading posts against plaintiff on any social media or digital platform.
The matter would next be listed on 23-02-2024.
[Saga Music (P) Ltd. v. Roger David, CS(COMM) 22 of 2024, Order dated 16-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Nikhil Chawla, Shivank Pratap Singh, Asavari Jain, Adityaraj Patodia, Advocates
