ITV

Category: High Court

  • PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent

    PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent

    MUMBAI: PVR Ltd has informed the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange that the Delhi High Court, vide the formal Order issued on 4 January, 2017, has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation entailing merger of PVR Leisure Limited and Lettuce Entertain You Limited with PVR Limited effective from the appointed date of 1 April, 2015.

    Justice Siddharth Mridul approved the scheme of amalgamation under which PVR Leisure Ltd — which operates in-mall entertainment, food and gaming joints, and Lettuce Entertain You Ltd — which is into the business of operating restaurants items — would merge with PVR Ltd, their parent company, PTI reported.

    In its directive approving the merger, the HC has stated that all the property, rights and powers of the two transferor companies shall be transferred to the transferee company.

    Under the scheme, the court also stated, “the entire paid-up equity and non-cumulative convertible preference share capital of petitioner company No.2 (PVR Leisure) is held by the transferee company directly, and the entire paid-up equity share capital of petitioner company No.1 (Lettuce) is held by transferee company through its wholly owned subsidiary PVR Leisure.”

    Also Read:

    Films Division shorts in cinema halls: Centre mulling revival

  • Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court vacation judge Justice Najmi Waziri has declined to vacate the injunction obtained by Event and Entertainment Management Association (EEMA) from the court earlier this month against collection of licence fees by the Indian Performing Rights Society, the Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex.

    However, the court gave directions whereby a complete list of performances would be kept for which payments are claimed and these will be subject to the final outcome of the petition by EEMA.

    Earlier, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had accepted that IPRS, PPL, and Novex were not registered copyright societies under section 33 of the Copyright Act, and had therefore restrained them from collecting any licence fee from performers or performing societies. He listed the matter for further hearing on 24 April 2017.

    EEMA had filed caveats in the event of these bodies seeking to challenge the restraint order and were therefore present in court when the challenge came up before the vacation bench.

    The vacation bench said for the interim period, EEMA members / the event organizer will provide PPL/IPRS/Novex a list of songs that they intend to play before an event on mail. PPL / IPRS / Novex will thereafter need to confirm in writing if they own the tracks.

    The event organisers will pay the amount before the event as per mutual negotiation with the copyright owner. The License issuing company/entity shall provide proof by way of legal agreements within seven days of the invoice, to the satisfaction of the event organiser. In case the event organiser is not satisfied by the proof provided, a refund can be claimed through the courts. The money will not be appropriated till such time that the matter is mutually resolved  

    Thus, copyright licence fees can only be collected under Section 30 which is reserved for owners of the copyright with the clear proviso that, when called upon to do so, they need to prove their ownership.

    Additionally, PPL/IPRS/Novex were asked to put up a detailed list on their website listing all songs they own, including the names of the authors / producers they have acquired them from along with the dates of validity of the contract till 31 March 2016.

    In addition to this, the licensing companies have to upload the valid legal agreements by which they claim ownership of these tracks by 31 December 2016.

    In the order that came after hearing EEMA counsel Ramji Srinivasan and Ashwani Kumar for the respondents, the Court instructed PPL/IPRS/Novex to set up an online payment gateway within one month of this hearing wherein we will be able to easily obtain permissions online.

    In a statement issued later, EEMA described the order as ‘very positive’ in the direction of transparency and accountability that EEMA and the creative fraternity across the music industry has been fighting for.

    The statement added that EEMA believes that copyright fees should be paid to the rightful creators and owners of copyright in a transparent and reasonable manner so that the rightful owners should receive their due and the rates being charged are logical and reasonable.

    Also Read:

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

     

  • Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    Licence fee payable to copyright owners; HC ‘no’ to vacate injunction

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court vacation judge Justice Najmi Waziri has declined to vacate the injunction obtained by Event and Entertainment Management Association (EEMA) from the court earlier this month against collection of licence fees by the Indian Performing Rights Society, the Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex.

    However, the court gave directions whereby a complete list of performances would be kept for which payments are claimed and these will be subject to the final outcome of the petition by EEMA.

    Earlier, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had accepted that IPRS, PPL, and Novex were not registered copyright societies under section 33 of the Copyright Act, and had therefore restrained them from collecting any licence fee from performers or performing societies. He listed the matter for further hearing on 24 April 2017.

    EEMA had filed caveats in the event of these bodies seeking to challenge the restraint order and were therefore present in court when the challenge came up before the vacation bench.

    The vacation bench said for the interim period, EEMA members / the event organizer will provide PPL/IPRS/Novex a list of songs that they intend to play before an event on mail. PPL / IPRS / Novex will thereafter need to confirm in writing if they own the tracks.

    The event organisers will pay the amount before the event as per mutual negotiation with the copyright owner. The License issuing company/entity shall provide proof by way of legal agreements within seven days of the invoice, to the satisfaction of the event organiser. In case the event organiser is not satisfied by the proof provided, a refund can be claimed through the courts. The money will not be appropriated till such time that the matter is mutually resolved  

    Thus, copyright licence fees can only be collected under Section 30 which is reserved for owners of the copyright with the clear proviso that, when called upon to do so, they need to prove their ownership.

    Additionally, PPL/IPRS/Novex were asked to put up a detailed list on their website listing all songs they own, including the names of the authors / producers they have acquired them from along with the dates of validity of the contract till 31 March 2016.

    In addition to this, the licensing companies have to upload the valid legal agreements by which they claim ownership of these tracks by 31 December 2016.

    In the order that came after hearing EEMA counsel Ramji Srinivasan and Ashwani Kumar for the respondents, the Court instructed PPL/IPRS/Novex to set up an online payment gateway within one month of this hearing wherein we will be able to easily obtain permissions online.

    In a statement issued later, EEMA described the order as ‘very positive’ in the direction of transparency and accountability that EEMA and the creative fraternity across the music industry has been fighting for.

    The statement added that EEMA believes that copyright fees should be paid to the rightful creators and owners of copyright in a transparent and reasonable manner so that the rightful owners should receive their due and the rates being charged are logical and reasonable.

    Also Read:

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

     

  • Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.

    With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.

    The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”

    Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”

    According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.

    “The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”

    Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “

    We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”

    (courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)

  • Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.

    With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.

    The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”

    Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”

    According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.

    “The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”

    Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “

    We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”

    (courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)

  • HC terms Care World TV ‘ban’ as illegal

    HC terms Care World TV ‘ban’ as illegal

    MUMBAI: The vigilant and democratic courts in India seem to be favouring justice more than regulation. The government apparently has been passing regulatory orders without studying the respective issues well and not doing sufficient homework before pleading their case/s. The Bombay High Court has termed as illegal the order of ministry of information and broadcasting imposing a week-long ban on Care World TV channel.

    Terming the order of the union government to prohibit transmission or retransmission of Care World TV channel for a week “completely illegal”, and a breach of elementary principles of natural justice, the court granted interim relief to Care World TV, stating that, till the disposal of the matter, no steps will be taken to implement the ban order. Justice A S Oka observed that, the larger issue of the power of the government of India of prohibiting the telecast of the TV channel, was, prima facie, illegal.

    The court held that the wider issue of power of the government to pass such a stern order would have to be looked into.

    The directions came recently while a bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and A S Oka was hearing a plea filed by Seven Star Satellite Private that runs the channel. The channel had challenged the 2-November order of the ministry that ordered it to go completely off-air between 9 & 16 November.

    The order had stated that its inter-ministerial committee found that the channel had violated the programme code prescribed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act by showing “adult content”. The hearing after the issuance of show-cause notice was given by the IMC but the order was signed by the ministry director.

    The lawyer representing the channel said the order recorded that the competent authority had decided to impose the penalty. The show-cause notice dated 26 June, 2015, however, was issued by the director while only the ministry had the powers to issue the order. He added that the show was pulled off-air on 4 November when the ban order was received.

    Also Read:

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/stay-on-care-world-tv-ban-extended-till-28-november-161123

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/hc-seeks-detailed-govt-order-on-care-world-indias-week-long-ban-161128

  • HC terms Care World TV ‘ban’ as illegal

    HC terms Care World TV ‘ban’ as illegal

    MUMBAI: The vigilant and democratic courts in India seem to be favouring justice more than regulation. The government apparently has been passing regulatory orders without studying the respective issues well and not doing sufficient homework before pleading their case/s. The Bombay High Court has termed as illegal the order of ministry of information and broadcasting imposing a week-long ban on Care World TV channel.

    Terming the order of the union government to prohibit transmission or retransmission of Care World TV channel for a week “completely illegal”, and a breach of elementary principles of natural justice, the court granted interim relief to Care World TV, stating that, till the disposal of the matter, no steps will be taken to implement the ban order. Justice A S Oka observed that, the larger issue of the power of the government of India of prohibiting the telecast of the TV channel, was, prima facie, illegal.

    The court held that the wider issue of power of the government to pass such a stern order would have to be looked into.

    The directions came recently while a bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and A S Oka was hearing a plea filed by Seven Star Satellite Private that runs the channel. The channel had challenged the 2-November order of the ministry that ordered it to go completely off-air between 9 & 16 November.

    The order had stated that its inter-ministerial committee found that the channel had violated the programme code prescribed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act by showing “adult content”. The hearing after the issuance of show-cause notice was given by the IMC but the order was signed by the ministry director.

    The lawyer representing the channel said the order recorded that the competent authority had decided to impose the penalty. The show-cause notice dated 26 June, 2015, however, was issued by the director while only the ministry had the powers to issue the order. He added that the show was pulled off-air on 4 November when the ban order was received.

    Also Read:

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/stay-on-care-world-tv-ban-extended-till-28-november-161123

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/hc-seeks-detailed-govt-order-on-care-world-indias-week-long-ban-161128

  • HC admits challenge to Care World TV ban

    HC admits challenge to Care World TV ban

    NEW DELHI: The Bombay High Court yesterday admitted for hearing a petition challenging a week-long ban against Care World India TV, after the information and broadcasting ministry declined to replace its earlier order with a new detailed order.

    A division bench of the court comprising Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Anuja Prabhudesai also confirmed the stay order on the ban, and this will remain in force till the hearing is concluded.

    Earlier this week, the court had said the ministry order is not a ‘speaking order’ as it does not give details of the violations by the channel. The court had said that the ministry should withdraw the show-cause notice to the channel, and issue a fresh order detailing violations.

    Seven Star Satellite Pvt Ltd counsel Mayur Khandeparkar told the court in the hearing on 8 November that a show-cause had been issued to the channel which had also been given a hearing by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, but the final order indicated that none of the arguments given by the channel had been taken into consideration and “therefore it is not a reasoned order”.

    The channel Care World had earlier been purportedly banned from the midnight of 9 November to midnight of 16 November 2016.

    Khandeparkar also said that the programme ‘Kya Karun main ab’ against which the ministerial order had come had already been taken off air and subsequent episodes would only come subject to the final order of the court.

    The judge also said in his order that the channel would not be permitted broadcast of this programme till its interim order was vacated.

    Also read

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/stay-on-care-world-tv-ban-extended-till-28-november-161123

    and

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/hc-seeks-detailed-govt-order-on-care-world-indias-week-long-ban-161128

  • HC admits challenge to Care World TV ban

    HC admits challenge to Care World TV ban

    NEW DELHI: The Bombay High Court yesterday admitted for hearing a petition challenging a week-long ban against Care World India TV, after the information and broadcasting ministry declined to replace its earlier order with a new detailed order.

    A division bench of the court comprising Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Anuja Prabhudesai also confirmed the stay order on the ban, and this will remain in force till the hearing is concluded.

    Earlier this week, the court had said the ministry order is not a ‘speaking order’ as it does not give details of the violations by the channel. The court had said that the ministry should withdraw the show-cause notice to the channel, and issue a fresh order detailing violations.

    Seven Star Satellite Pvt Ltd counsel Mayur Khandeparkar told the court in the hearing on 8 November that a show-cause had been issued to the channel which had also been given a hearing by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, but the final order indicated that none of the arguments given by the channel had been taken into consideration and “therefore it is not a reasoned order”.

    The channel Care World had earlier been purportedly banned from the midnight of 9 November to midnight of 16 November 2016.

    Khandeparkar also said that the programme ‘Kya Karun main ab’ against which the ministerial order had come had already been taken off air and subsequent episodes would only come subject to the final order of the court.

    The judge also said in his order that the channel would not be permitted broadcast of this programme till its interim order was vacated.

    Also read

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/stay-on-care-world-tv-ban-extended-till-28-november-161123

    and

    http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/hc-seeks-detailed-govt-order-on-care-world-indias-week-long-ban-161128

  • HC seeks detailed govt order on Care World India’s week-long ban

    HC seeks detailed govt order on Care World India’s week-long ban

    NEW DELHI: The Bombay High Court today said the Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s order imposing a one-week ban against Care World India TV is not a ‘speaking order’ as it does not give details of the violations by the channel.

    In view of this, Justice M S Karnik said that the Ministry should withdraw the show cause notice to the channel and issue a fresh order detailing violations. It gave time to the counsel for the Government to get instructions and inform the court by 30 November 2016.

    Earlier, the court had extended the stay on the ministry order last week, after the TV channel informed the court that it wanted to amend its petition. The channel was required to satisfy the Court by today as to what amendments it wants to make.

    Seven Star Satellite Pvt Ltd counsel Mayur Khandeparkar told the court in the last hearing on 8 November that a show-cause had been issued to the channel which had also been given a hearing by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, but the final order indicated that none of the arguments given by the channel had been taken into consideration and “therefore it is not a reasoned order”.

    The ban had been put on the channel Care World from the midnight of 9 November to midnight of 16 November 2016.

    Khandeparkar also said that the programme ‘Kya Karun main ab’ against which the ministerial order had come had already been taken off air and subsequent episodes would only come subject to the final order of the Court. 

    The judge also said in his order that the channel would not be permitted broadcast of this programme till its interim order was vacated.

    Also read:   Stay on Care World TV ban extended till 28 November