Other eight broadcasters also filed applications for companypulsory licence against Super Cassettes, relying solely on the order of the Copyright Board dated 25th August, 2010.
Despite the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court dated 15th September, 2010, MBPL filed an application for companypulsory licence under Section 31 1 b of the Copyright Act, relying solely on the rates fixed by the Copyright Board for PPL by its order dated 25th August, 2010.
By its order dated 28th March, 2011, the Copyright Board dismissed the application for interim relief filed by MBPL holding that it did number have the power to grant any interim companypulsory licence.
Super Cassettes responded to the said offer made by MBPL on the same terms as were prevalent under the expired voluntary licence agreement.
After hearing Super Cassettes and the Respondents, including MBPL, on 15th September, 2010, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order to the effect that the order dated 25th August, 2010, passed by the Board would number be relied upon by any of the Respondents or any other party for a companypulsory licence against Super Cassettes.
The said proposal made by Super Cassettes was rejected by MBPL, while other broadcasters companytinued to broadcast the work of Super Cassettes on existing mutually agreed terms which were different from the terms set out in the order of the Copyright Board dated 25th August, 2010.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
Super Cassettes filed Writ Petition No.6255 of 2010, questioning the order passed by the Copyright Board dated 25th August, 2010.
