International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) v. Aditya Pandey & Ors.
Background
Event organisers who had paid sound-recording companies/broadcasters for playing songs in public were sued by composers'/authors' collecting societies (including CISAC, IPRS and PPRS) for also needing a separate licence from the underlying lyricists and musicians, in long-pending suits (one filed in 2006) before the Delhi High Court. A Single Judge disposed of the interim injunction applications with a workable interim formula on when a licence from the underlying-rights societies is additionally needed, and a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed that interim order. The societies (and others) appealed that interim order to the Supreme Court; CISAC itself was not even a party to the underlying suits but was permitted to contest the interim appeal because the order affected its members' rights.
Decision Breakdown
Justice Pant's lead opinion examined the Copyright Act's provisions (including the 2012 amendment to Section 19) and prior precedent (Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures) on how copyright in an underlying literary/musical work co-exists with copyright in a derivative sound recording, and found no error in the High Court's interim formula, while clarifying that post-21.06.2012 authors retain a statutory right to an equal share of royalties under Section 19(10) regardless of assignment. Justice Gogoi, concurring separately, agreed with the outcome but stressed that at the interim stage courts must exercise restraint and avoid substantive observations that could prejudice the still-pending suits; he also flagged that the underlying suits had languished over 10 years with no real progress despite vigorous contest of the interim orders. The Court unanimously disposed of all the connected appeals, declining to disturb the interim arrangement, while directing that the High Court's observations have no binding legal effect on the merits and that the underlying suits be expedited and finally decided within one year.
Lesson Learnt
An appeal challenging only an interim order can be fully and finally decided on its own terms (here, upholding the interim licensing formula) without pre-deciding the ultimate merits of the underlying suit, and courts will sometimes use such an appeal to also push stalled litigation toward a speedy final hearing.