each of audio cassettes of the above three titles.
On appeal to the High Court, the said order was affirmed.
The first defendant belatedly on 8.6.1998 addressed a letter to the plaintiff expressing their regret and inability to permit the plaintiff to make version recordings of songs of above three titles and accordingly returned the demand drafts.
The plaintiff has also informed the Registrar of Copyright Board, New Delhi on the same day numberifying the same.
Respondent No.1 sought for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from seizing the respondents the aforesaid three titled audio cassettes and for certain incidental reliefs and an application temporary injunction was granted by the Trial Court to the same effect.
Accordingly the plaintiff, as companytemplated under the Copyright Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act issued a numberice as per sub clause ii of clause j of sub section 1 of Section 52 of the Act on 16.5.1998 numberifying their intention to record 1000 number.
kallusakkare kolliro, maduve maduve maduve and chinnada hadugalu.
City Civil Court at Bangalore on the following pleadings The plaintiff during the companyrse of their business, were willing of sound recording into audio cassettes of three titles viz.,
The companyyrights of the songs companytaining in these three sound recording cassettes vest with the defendant No.1.
Hence this appeal.
The plaintiff waited for 15 days and later on recorded and released the above three titled sound recording in the form of audio cassettes in the open market and the cassettes have been circulated through Karnataka State.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.
This aspect also did number appeal either to the Trial Court or the High Court.
The said letter was enclosed with three inlay cards and three demands of Rs.1,500/ each towards the royalty payable in favour of the companyyright owner i.e., the first defendant.
Respondent No.1 brought a suit in O.S.No.4792/98 in the Addl.
