Calcutta High Court Vacates Interim Order in Copyright Dispute Over 'Sathi Pauti Bhoga' Song

Calcutta High Court Vacates Interim Order in Copyright Dispute Over 'Sathi Pauti Bhoga' Song

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has ruled in favor of Bhikari Bal Foundation and Anr in a copyright infringement suit filed by Inreco Entertainment Private Limited. The court vacated the ad interim order dated 12 July 2023, restraining the respondents from playing or uploading the song "Sathi Pauti Bhoga" on the platform maintained by the respondent no. 3.

Factual Background

Inreco Entertainment Private Limited claimed ownership of the sound recording and literary, musical, and other underlying rights in the song "Sathi Pauti Bhoga" through agreements dated 4 June 1977 and 2 June 1980 with Bhikari Bal and Radhanath Das. The respondents, Bhikari Bal Foundation and Anr, disputed the petitioner's rights, alleging forgery and non-payment of royalties.

Procedural Background

The court considered the agreements and the conduct of the parties, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate payment of royalties and adherence to the revenue-sharing model. The court also observed that the agreements were for a limited duration and did not explicitly grant perpetual rights to the petitioner.

Issues

1. Copyright Infringement: Whether the respondents' actions constitute copyright infringement.

2. Ownership Rights: Whether Inreco Entertainment Private Limited has valid ownership rights in the song "Sathi Pauti Bhoga".

3. Interpretation of Agreements: Whether the agreements dated 4 June 1977 and 2 June 1980 grant perpetual rights to the petitioner.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner's Contentions:

• The petitioner claims ownership of the sound recording and literary, musical, and other underlying rights in the song "Sathi Pauti Bhoga" through the agreements.
• The respondents' actions constitute copyright infringement.

Respondent's Contentions:

• The agreements were for a limited duration and did not grant perpetual rights to the petitioner.
• The petitioner failed to pay royalties and adhere to the revenue-sharing model.
• The agreements were confined to the sale of records only and did not cover digital mediums.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The court noted that the agreements were for a limited duration and did not explicitly grant perpetual rights to the petitioner. The court also observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate payment of royalties and adherence to the revenue-sharing model.

Decision

The court vacated the ad interim order dated 12 July 2023 and dismissed the petitioner's application for interim reliefs. The court directed both parties to take expeditious steps for hearing of the suit.

Directions

Vacation of Interim Order: The ad interim order dated 12 July 2023 is vacated.

• Dismissal of Application: The petitioner's application for interim reliefs is dismissed.
• Expeditious Hearing: Both parties are directed to take expeditious steps for hearing of the suit.

Implications

The court's decision highlights the importance of interpreting agreements and understanding the rights and obligations of parties involved in copyright disputes. It also emphasizes the need for petitioners to demonstrate adherence to contractual obligations and payment of royalties.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Mr. Balarko Sen, Mr. Shounak Myukhopadhyay and Ms. Shyantee Datta, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Ms. Susrea Mitra and Mr. Debraj Dey, Advocates.