CASE TITLE –
Global Music Junction Private Limited v. Annapurna Films Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 17
FACTS OF THE CASE –
Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) is both, a production and distribution company for music and entertainment content. They entered into a production agreement with a renowned Bollywood actor/singer/dancer of the Bhojpuri Film Industry, Keshari Lal Yadav, for producing 200 songs with fixed exclusive rights for the Plaintiff. The parties later agreed to an addendum, wherein they temporarily revoked the exclusive rights of the plaintiff except in respect of the YouTube Channel ‘BlueBeat Bhojpuri’; however they were given a right of first refusal on any future use of his work by third party.
Later on, Keshari Lal himself terminated the agreement, which led to Global Music Junction Pvt Ltd filling a copyright infringement lawsuit against Annapurna Films and several media channels on YouTube LLC’s platform for using Lal’s songs under their own names without taking/giving any permission or authorization from them.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff claimed that, the agreement should be upheld because it was a commercial contract and thus should be enforceable and legally recognized. Furthermore, they contended that since, they had been granted exclusive rights to all works created by Lal under the agreement, until he terminated it, their claim was not of specific performance, but instead dealt with an infringement of their copyright.
ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANTS
The Defendants submitted that the Addendum was entered on the understanding that there would be no exclusivity between the parties, and the Artist would be free to work with third parties. The Defendants further mentioned that if the trust is broken between the parties, then regardless of who cancelled the contract, it will become null and void.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT –
- Whether the Defendant had any legitimate grounds for terminating the contract.
JUDGMENT –
This case was determined to be specific performance rather than copyright infringement because the execution was based on subjective factors or personal factors like trust between parties, which can be easily broken and thus cannot be enforced after it has been broken regardless of who initiated to break the trust. The court also pointed out that while Global Music Junction, had exclusive rights over all the works created/produced under the original agreement prior to its termination, they could not claim the same rights over the material that have not been yet created.
The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright upon the songs or content that will be created in the future, they cannot claim for any work that has not been created yet. Since, Global Music Junction Pvt Ltd., may claim for damages in their existing litigation and there is no balance in favor of issuing injunction, therefore they will not be granted any injunctive relief.
The Delhi High Court upheld its decision in favour of Keshari Lal Yadav and other defendants in this case. The contract in the present case was a ‘contract of service’ as mentioned in the Original Agreement. However, the contract being a commercial contract between the two private parties for mutual gain and benefit, it cannot be stated that the Artist could not terminate the aforesaid contract. The court finally held that “Once the parties have lost mutual trust and confidence in each other, the Court cannot grant an injunction compelling the Artist to continue with its contractual obligations with the plaintiff company.”
K S & CO COMMENTS
In the case of a contract of service, it is of utmost importance to recognize that the contract must be crafted in a manner that fulfills the rights and obligations of the individuals involved. A contract of service outlines the terms and conditions governing the employment relationship, defining roles, responsibilities and expectations of both the employer and the employee and in particular creation of IP & to whom it will belong. In case, the terms of contract of service are not met, the party should pay substantial compensation. There should be personal freedom and autonomy in contracts. It reaffirmed that contracts of a personal nature can be terminated and should not bind individuals perpetually.
Leave a Reply