Economic Laws Practice (ELP) and Karanjawala & Co defended and won a favourable order for, respectively, Next Radio and Music Broadcast (MBPL) in a writ petition filed by Phonograhic Performance  (PPL) in the Delhi high court challenging six compulsory licenses of Next Radio.

ELP partner Kirat Nagra with associate manager Kartik Yadav acted for Next Radio.

Karanjawala partner Meghna Mishra and associates Manmeet Kaur, Akhil Sachar, Manan Chadha and Dheeraj P Deo acted for MBPL.

Senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar was briefed for both the radio stations.

PPL had challenged the Registrar of Copyright’s order granting compulsory licenses to Next Radio’s stations in six cities and nine other compulsory licences granted to MBPL over and above the Copyright Board.

Click to show 4 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Clifford Chance 13 Jan 15, 23:11
Kian, please could you spell that ''pleaders' name correctly? Shouldn't it be spelt as 'Rajiv'?
Reply Report to LI
1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 13 Jan 15, 23:25
Thanks, sorry for the typo!
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 incomplete 16 Jan 15, 16:01
So who represented Phonographic?
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 teriyaki 27 Jan 15, 22:50
Dear Kian,

How is this a 'win'? The outcome has been linked to pending litigation before the Chennai HC and also the Court has reached the conclusion that Respondent No. 3 has not paid the appropriate fees before the Copyright Boar. The relevant potion is "Therefore, it is imperative that fee of Rs.200/- is to be paid per sound recording in the Repertoire of the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 has not paid the prescribed fee for the compulsory licences granted by the impugned order for any of its Radio Stations."

Appears to be poor reporting.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.