He said the viewers will be provided a feast of features, including panel discussions, star profiles, statistics, quizzes and flashbacks of historic matches. During the World Cup, the two channels will feature ball-to-ball live coverage of every match. Up-to-date information will be brought to the viewers from a live studio located in London. A espn star sports live match crew from these channels will be following the Indian team during the entire tournament, Dovey said. Besides daily coverage, there will be a minute breakfast show everyday to give the information the viewers require first thing in the morning.
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. Appellant Through Mr. Sundaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ganpathy, Advocate.
Respondents Through Mr. Soli Sorabjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anup Bhambhani and Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Advocates for respondents No. Pallavi Langar, Ms. Amrita Bhattacharya and Mr. Prithvi Sidhu, Advocates, for respondent No.
Pratibha M. Singh and Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Advocates, for the respondent No. SHALI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? This Regular First Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 18 February delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, where in the first part deals with interlocutory relief and second part deals with the non-maintainability of the suit.
After the arguments were heard in this appeal, both the parties including News Broadcasters Association, agreed to attempt to arrive at a broad consensus on the question of 'fair dealing' in light of the existing guidelines framed by Prasar Bharti and accordingly requested this court to defer the delivery of this judgment.
The appellants had granted licenses to over cable operators in India to transmit their channels on their cable networks. The respondent no. The pleas of the respondents were as under: a The suit was not maintainable on the ground that in every action claiming infringement, the owner of copyright should necessarily be made a party to the proceedings in terms of Section 61 1 of the Copyright Act, and that since C.
A had not been made a party to the suit, the suit ought to be dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Single Judge after hearing all parties to the proceedings, dismissed the suit as not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 61 1 of the Act holding that C.
The Court also dismissed the application for injunction holding that the action of the appellant in not disclosing the full license agreement weighed against the appellant in the matter of grant of ad interim relief.
The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 18th February, held as follows: " The content and extent of that right has been defined in Section Facially, the argument seems logical; yet a careful examination would reveal several flows in it.
Firstly, there is no legislative intention to elevate "broadcasting rights" to a special status, immune from the operation of the other parts of the Act.
If such intention were there, Parliament would have used legislative devices such as non-obstante clauses, exclusions, etc. Secondly, the argument flies against well established canons of legislative interpretation that a statute must be read as a whole and the legislature should be deemed to have intended application of each part for the situations intended.
If the plaintiff's contentions were accepted, Section 61 would operate only in some situations and not all, even though non express provision manifests such intention nor can it be drawn by necessary implication. The requirements of Section 61 , procedural in nature, apply with equal vigor to all nature of rights that are subject matter of the Act.
The third reason why the plaintiff's argument is unacceptable is that though Section A refers to a few sections, and applies them with suitable modifications, yet, there is express reference to copyright in Section 39 ; similarly, there is reference to application of what is meant by fair dealing under Section 52 , over and above what is enacted under Section 39 , in relation to copyright.
Section A proviso also negatives the plea, because it clearly refers to the copyright of a performer or owner of copyright, where reproduction of a broadcast is involved. For these reasons, it has to be held that the mandate of Section 61 1 applies in case of claims for infringement of broadcast reproduction rights; the non-impleadment of the owner of copyright is fatal to the maintainability of the suit.
Similarly, the non-joinder of owner of the copyright renders the suit liable to be rejected. The proviso to Order 1, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code enacts that a suit can fail for non-joinder of a necessary party. In Udi Narain Singh Malpaharia v.
The Court held that: "The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.
Coming now to the first aspect, i. However, the same standard cannot be applied while considering whether the plaint has to be rejected as not disclosing a cause of action.
A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence Raptakos Bret -vs-Ganesh Property 7 SCC As long as the plaint discloses some cause of action that has to be determined by the court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
Therefore, the non- disclosure of the entire agreement at this preliminary stage is not such irregularity as to warrant rejection of the plaint, for reason of its not disclosing a cause of action. In view of the findings on Section 61 , this suit is not maintainable, it is therefore, dismissed.
The parties are left to bear their own costs. Shri C. Sundaram, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant while contending that the impugned judgment and order dated 18th February be set aside, raised his arguments on a three fold basis.
While submitting the first of his three fold argument, the learned senior counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions: A Status of Broadcasters before the amendment of the Copyright Act and after the amendment. With the opening of the Indian markets in , several players involved in broadcasting came into India.
The feed is first uplinked from the venue of the event for a live event or a studio which can be located anywhere in the world. Such cable operators then transmit the feed to cable homes by way of network of cables. As a natural consequence it was considered necessary to protect broadcasters from against unauthorized receipt by the cable operators of their services without a contract permitting such receipt.
Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to prohibit the following acts when undertaken without their authorization: the fixation, the reproduction of fixations, and the rebroadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same.
Where Members do not grant such rights to broadcasting organizations, they shall provide owners of copyright in the subject matter of broadcasts with the possibility of preventing the above acts, subject to the provisions of the Berne Convention emphasis supplied.
The amendment came into effect from May 10, Some countries such as France, Germany and India have given a special right known as 'Broadcasting Reproduction Right' which is a related right and is different from copyright.
The statement of Object and Reasons itself provides that "Certain Rights akin to copyright are conferred on the broadcasting authorities in respect of programs broadcast by them.
The amendment Act of extended such rights to all Broadcasting Organizations apart from more clearly crystallizing the nature of such rights. From the above mentioned references it is clear that the idea of the legislature was to provide a separate and distinct right to the broadcasting organizations to help them protect their rights in their broadcasts against third parties.
Therefore, what emerges from the above is that the Broadcast Reproduction Right, which is different from Copyright, is with the Broadcasting Organization which is causing the Broadcast to be communicated to the public under their Logo by any means of wireless diffusion or by wire, i. As such Section 61 is not applicable in a proceeding for infringement of Broadcasting Reproduction Right as that provision is only limited to the cases where an exclusive licensee of a copyright institutes a suit or proceeding for infringement of copyright.
The learned counsel for the appellant further contended as follows: A. Cinematographic copyright vests in the recording of the event in a cricket match.