Case: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 47 PTC 70 (Del)

Facts: The case involved copyright infringement of Pakistani songs. The question arose whether Pakistani works were entitled to copyright protection in India under Section 40.

Issue: Whether Pakistan, as a signatory to international copyright conventions, qualified for copyright protection extension under Section 40 in India.

Judgment: The Delhi High Court held that:

• Pakistan is a member of various international copyright conventions
• India has extended copyright protection to works from countries that are parties to these conventions through various orders
• Pakistani works are entitled to copyright protection in India by virtue of the reciprocal arrangements under Section 40
• The principle of reciprocity is fundamental to international copyright protection

Significance: This case clarified that membership in international copyright conventions triggers the application of Section 40, ensuring that works from member countries receive protection in India based on the principle of reciprocity.

Case: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Chintamani Rao (2010) 42 PTC 49 (AP)

Facts: The case involved the unauthorized use of performances by Pakistani singers in sound recordings. The question was whether foreign performers' rights were protected in India.

Issue: Whether performer's rights of foreign nationals are protected under Indian Copyright Act when their country is a signatory to international conventions.

Judgment: The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that:

• Section 40A specifically provides for extension of protection to foreign performers
• When a country is party to international conventions on neighboring rights, performers from that country are entitled to protection in India
• The Government's notification extending protection is decisive
• Performer's rights are independent of copyright in the underlying work

Significance: This case established that foreign performers' rights are protected in India through the operation of Section 40A, provided their country has reciprocal arrangements or is part of relevant international conventions.

Case: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1

Facts: While this case primarily dealt with originality and copyright in law reports, it touched upon the question of copyright ownership when works are created under direction and control of an organization.

Relevant Issue: When can an organization claim copyright in works created by others under its direction and control?

Judgment (Relevant Portions): The Supreme Court held that:

• Copyright ownership depends on who exercises control and direction over the work's creation
• When a work is commissioned under terms where the commissioning party retains all rights and exercises control, they can be the copyright owner
• This principle extends to international organizations under Section 41
• The key factor is the agreement and actual control exercised

Significance for Section 41: This case clarified the principles of copyright ownership when works are created under direction and control, which is directly applicable to understanding how international organizations acquire copyright under Section 41.

Case: Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2010) 177 DLT 333

Facts: The case involved the question of copyright protection for sound recordings and whether reciprocity principles affect copyright protection in India.

Relevant Issue: Whether lack of reciprocity or adequate protection in foreign countries can be a ground for denying copyright protection in India.

Judgment: The Delhi High Court observed:

• Section 42 is a safeguard provision enabling the Government to take retaliatory action
• The power under Section 42 must be exercised by the Central Government through an official order
• Courts cannot independently deny copyright protection based on lack of reciprocity without a Government order under Section 42
• The principle of reciprocity is primarily a matter of international relations and Government policy
• Unless the Government exercises its power under Section 42, copyright protection continues

Significance: This case clarified that Section 42 is an enabling provision that requires active government intervention. Copyright protection continues unless the Government specifically restricts it through an order.

Case: Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161

Facts: While this case primarily dealt with performer's rights and the role of copyright societies, it discussed the scope and nature of performer's rights under Indian law, including international aspects.

Relevant Issue: The nature and scope of performer's rights and the conditions under which such rights can be restricted or denied.

Judgment (Relevant Portions): The Supreme Court held:

• Performer's rights are separate and distinct from copyright in the underlying work
• Chapter VIII creates special rights for performers and broadcasters
• These rights can be extended to foreign entities through Section 40A or restricted through Section 42A
• The Government's power to restrict must be exercised judiciously considering international obligations
• Reciprocity is an important principle in international copyright relations

Significance: This case clarified the independent nature of performer's rights and broadcasting rights, and recognized that these rights can be subject to international reciprocity principles under Sections 40A and 42A.

Case: Harla v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1951 SC 467

Context: While this is a pre-Constitution case, it established fundamental principles about subordinate legislation and parliamentary control that apply to provisions like Section 43.

Issue: The extent and nature of legislative control over delegated legislation and executive orders.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held:

• Delegated legislation must be subject to legislative oversight
• Provisions requiring laying before Parliament are constitutional safeguards
• Parliament's power to modify or annul orders is an essential check on executive power
• Such provisions ensure accountability and transparency in governance

Application to Section 43:

• Section 43 embodies the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
• It prevents arbitrary exercise of executive power in international copyright matters
• The requirement is mandatory, not directory
• Failure to comply could render the order vulnerable to challenge

Significance: This case, along with subsequent jurisprudence, established that provisions like Section 43 are crucial constitutional safeguards ensuring democratic control over executive actions affecting citizens' rights.