The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries, contended before the High Court that the defendant, SCN Sujla Channel, a cable operator in Rajasthan was heavily using songs and film extracts to enhance its viewership. Accordi

The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries, contended before the High Court that the defendant, SCN Sujla Channel, a cable operator in Rajasthan was heavily using songs and film extracts to enhance its viewership. According to the plaintiff, in June 2015, when its executive captured on CD and DVD, the content being broadcast by the defendant, it realiazed that a major chunk of the content was copyrighted by the plaintiff and was broadcast without its consent. Prominent examples of such content included such famous songs as Tere Mast Mast do Nain (Dabangg) Dhinkaq Chika (Ready), and Sadi Gali (Tanu Weds Manu). The plaintiff contended that it apprised the defendant of its public performance licensing scheme under which it could legally broadcast the infringing content and also sent it a cease and desist notice in August 2015 by which the defendant was requested to seek the requisite license and pay damages worth ₹ 25 lakhs for the infringement of the plaintiff's copyright. Since the defendant did not respond to the notice, the plaintiff contended that the defendant's conduct fell within the four squares of Section 51 of the Copyright Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of damages. Since the licensing fee charged by the plaintiff was ₹ 18 per month per household, and the defendant had thousands of connections, the plaintiff argued that it was entitled to damages worth ₹ 1 crore in addition to rendition of accounts of profit and delivery of the infringing tapes. The Delhi High Court noted that the plaintiff had been able to successfully establish that, since it was the owner of copyright in the concerned content, its rights had been violated by the defendant within the meaning of Section 51 of the Copyright Act. Further, since the defendant did not indicate the names of the author or owner of copyright in the films and sound recordings broadcast by it, the Court held that it had failed to comply with the statutory command engrafted in Section 52A of the Act. In the light of the fact that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's rights in a deliberate and calculated fashion and did not even bother to contest the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff, the Court held that the grant of damages was warranted. Thereafter, the Court articulated the proposition that the aim of such damages would not only be to penalize the wrongdoer but also to recompense the plaintiff for the loss suffered by it. While the Court acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff's prayer for the grant of damages has gone unrebutted, it noted that it had not put forth any material that could assist the Court in ascertaining what illegal revenue was earned by the defendant by virtue of the infringing content. Holding that the plaintiff's rate card which indicated the licence fee that it charged cable operators for the broadcast of its content was an indicator of the profits that it could have earned, the Court held that the same could not take the plaintiff's case very far in light of the fact that its estimate of ₹ 1 crore was founded only upon its bald assertion that the defendant had thousands of customers. Therefore, the Court asked the plaintiff to put forth cogent and reliable evidence to indicate the amount of compensatory damages that it was entitled to owing to the defendant's conduct and asked the defendant to share with the plaintiff its accounts of profits on the basis of which the plaintiff could compute the same. Finally, it granted punitive damages worth ₹ 5 lakhs in the interim. Does the Copyright Act envisage the grant of punitive damages? Does the High Court have a legal basis for granting punitive damages ?