Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Darsh Digital Network Pvt. Ltd.
In the High Court of Delhi
CS (Comm) 173/2018
Before Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Decided on March 8, 2018

Relevancy of the case: Permanent injunction to restrain a Multi-System Operator from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (Rule 2(c))
• The Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 33)
• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXIX Rule 2A)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The defendant was a Local Cable Operator (LCO) but became an MSO (Multi-System Operator). An MSO supplies bandwidth frequency to other cable TV operators.
• A 2012 ad-interim order restrained the defendant from engaging in or authorising the exploitation of works owned by the plaintiff without the plaintiff granting the defendant a licence.
• The plaintiff instituted this suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The plaintiff’s counsel showed screenshots of the broadcast of their works, where the broadcast showed the defendant’s logo on the plaintiff’s works. They stated that this proved that the defendant-supplied bandwidth/frequency to cable TV operators infringed the plaintiff’s copyright. She contended that the defendant violated the interim order.
• The defendant’s counsel stated that the defendant is only a supplier of bandwidth/frequency to other cable TV operators. The cable TV operators had infringed on the plaintiff’s copyright. Thus, the defendant was not liable for damages. The defendant has no objection to suffering a decree of a permanent injunction and undertook to pay a lump sum of ₹5 lakhs compensation and suit costs.

Opinion of the Bench

• The defendant’s counsel did not explain the presence of the defendant’s logo in the broadcast.
• The court accepted the defendant’s undertaking to pay the compensation and the suit costs to the plaintiff.
• The court cautioned the defendants of the consequences of breaching the undertaking.

Final Decision

• The bench granted a permanent injunction in the plaintiff’s favour. Per the decree sheet, if the defendant breaches the undertaking, the plaintiff would be entitled to proceed against them and immediately execute the decree.

Anjali Agrawal, an undergraduate student at the NALSAR University of Law, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.