Jayant Nath, J.:-- 1. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing audio cassettes. It is also alleged that the plaintiff has repertoire of cinematographic films and sound recordings. The plaintiffs repertoire is easily identified by the public since all the CDs/DVDs/VCDs uses T-SERIES logo and copyright notice as elaborated in para 13 of the Plaint. The plaintiff also gives licences to other broadcasting organizations for material in which it enjoys copyright. It is stated that the defendant is an ex-licensee of the plaintiff. The defendant is stated to be primarily engaged in the media and entertainment industry and runs and operates various television channels including a hindi news channel known as “Channel One”. 2. A license contract was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 26.6.2009 for the period from 1st of July 2009 to 30th June, 2010. However, despite expiry of the license the defendant has continued to infringe plaintiff’s copyright. 3. It is submitted that one Mr. Rajesh Bhogal, plaintiffs employee has been able to record on a sample basis infringing broadcasts made by the defendant on its channel “Channel One” from 28th March, 2011 to 2nd April, 2011. An Affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Bhogal has been placed on record. The list of works which have been infringed by the defendant have been annexed to the Affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Bhogal. 4. It is further pointed out that defendant had filed a Suit in Tis Hazari Courts under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and in the said suit defendant has admitted broadcasting plaintiffs repertoire of works on its channel. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the plaintiff has exclusive copyright of the sound recordings, audio-visual of songs (cinematograph films) and musical and/or literary works. The defendant has illegally and unauthorisedly broadcasted the copyright work of the plaintiff and hence defendant is liable for infringement under the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. 5. The plaintiff has also filed evidence by way of affidavit Mr. Vipin Vij, Manager (Anti-Piracy) of the plaintiffs company. The said Mr. Vijay has power to sign and verify the plaint and institute the present suit in view of Board Resolution dated 30.1.2008. The said Mr. Vijay has reiterated the contentions made by the plaintiff in the plaint. He further submits that Mr. Vipin Vij, Manager (Anti-Piracy) of the plaintiffs company. The said Mr. Vijay has power to sign and verify the plaint and institute the present suit in view of Board Resolution dated 30.1.2008. The said Mr. Vijay has reiterated the contentions made by the plaintiff in the plaint. He further submits that Mr. Rajesh Bhogal was able to record on a sample basis the infringing broadcasts made by the defendant for the period from 28.3.2011 to 2.4.2011. He has exhibited the Assignment Deeds which shows that the company is a copyright owner of the sound recordings, audio-visual works and underlying musical and/or literary works exploited, by the defendant on its channel. He also points out that a complaint was filed by the plaintiff before Police Station Darya Ganj on 27.4.2011. It is further stated that the act of defendants has caused substantial loss and damage to the plaintiff company on account of the infringement of copyright. The activities of the defendant have disturbed the plaintiff company’s business which depends purely on license income from the use of its copyright works. 6. Evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Bhogal has also been placed on record. He has reiterated the piracy done by the defendants for the period 28.3.2011 to 2.4.2011. He has exhibited in proof the corresponding cue sheet identifying the film/album belonging to the plaintiffs repertoire, programme, duration of infringement etc. which have been filed along with the affidavit regarding which the rights of the plaintiff have been infringed. 7. On the basis of the evidence led, I am satisfied that the defendant has infringed and is continuing to infringe copyright of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also seeks damages relying upon Clause 40 Sub clause (iv) of the plaint to argue that the plaintiff has demanded damages. He also relies on Clause 39 Sub clause (iv) to argue that the damages sought by the plaintiff are to the tune of Rs. 21 lacs. It is submitted that the license was for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs by way of goodwill gesture as the parties were carrying out business for the first time. Hence, it is stated that for the subsequent year it was agreed that license would be double the amount may be more than Rs. 12 lacs. 21 lacs. It is submitted that the license was for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs by way of goodwill gesture as the parties were carrying out business for the first time. Hence, it is stated that for the subsequent year it was agreed that license would be double the amount may be more than Rs. 12 lacs. On this basis, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that they are entitled to nominal damages of Rs. 21 lacs. 8. The witness for the plaintiff, namely, Mr. Vipin Vij as in para 25 explained the extent of damages. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the defendant has been infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and considering that the defendant was earlier paying only license fee of Rs. 6 lacs, the claim of plaintiff for damages for the sum of Rs. 21 lacs is found to be justified. Accordingly a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant: “(a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its “officers, agents and representatives from engaging or authorizing” recording, distributing, broadcasting or otherwise publishing or in any “other way exploiting any film, sound recordings, music, lyrics in the” plaintiffs repertoire or from broadcasting/communicating to the public “on its channel(s) any such works in the plaintiffs repertoire including” all the works whereon the plaintiff has shown its copyright or from doing “any act infringing the plaintiffs copyright; “(b) for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 21 lakhs. “The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of suit as per” schedule. Decree sheet be drawn up.