JUDGMENT By this suit, the plaintiff has prayed for injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from conducting public performances of the plaintiff's repertoire of literary and musical works without obtaining a license from the plaintiff and without paying the author's statutory royalty to the plaintiff. In addition, rendition of accounts followed by a decree of profits and damages of Rs.1 crore have also been prayed for. 2. Suit summons was served on the first defendant on 21.08.2023. The first defendant failed to enter appearance in person or through counsel and, therefore, did not file a written statement. Consequently, the first defendant was set ex parte by order dated 05.09.2023. Suit summons was served on the second and third defendants on 04.01.2020 and 22.01.2020, respectively. Since the said defendants also failed to file their written statements, by order dated 30.07.2021, the right of all the defendants to file written statements was forfeited. Defendants 2 and 3 remained unrepresented thereafter. Even today, the said defendants are unrepresented. In view thereof, the second and third defendants are also set ex parte. 3. By order dated 25.08.2021, the matter was posted before the Additional Master No.I for recording evidence. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff examined four witnesses. Ms.Sheetal D.Madnani was examined as P.W.1. In course of her examination-in-chief, 40 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P40. Mr.K.Prabhu, Licensing Executive of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.2. In course of his examination-in-chief, two documents were marked as Exs.P41 and P42. Mr.Pawankumar Ramesh Chandar Gupta, the Assistant Manager, Distribution Department of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.3. In course of his examination-in-chief, three documents were exhibited as Exs.P43 and P44. Mr.N.J.Venkataraman, Area Manager of the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.4. In course of his examination-in- chief, Exs.P45 to P59 were exhibited. Although the second and third defendants had not been set ex parte at that juncture, they did not contest the proceedings or cross examine any of the witnesses. As stated earlier, as regards the first defendant, the said defendant was set ex parte on 05.09.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant conducted about four events at which public performances of copyrighted material took place without obtaining licenses from the plaintiff and without paying royalty. He referred to the events described at paragraphs 31 to 40 of the plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant conducted about four events at which public performances of copyrighted material took place without obtaining licenses from the plaintiff and without paying royalty. He referred to the events described at paragraphs 31 to 40 of the plaint. As regards the event organized by the first and second defendants at Hosur Mela Ground under the title “Paatu Thalaivan Paadinal Musical Programme”, learned counsel submitted that evidence was adduced by the plaintiff through P.W.2. In particular, he referred to the proof affidavit of K.Prabhu and the ticket exhibited under Ex.P41. He also referred to the evidence of P.W.3 in this regard. With particular reference to paragraphs 4 to 6 of such proof affidavit, learned counsel submits that the authors and publishers of the songs performed at the event are members of the plaintiff. 5. By referring to Exs.P39 and P40, he also submits that notices were issued by the plaintiff before the suit was instituted, including by way of a lawyer's notice. 6. The plaintiff is a copyright society registered with the Central Government. In terms of Sections 18 , 19 and 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 , copyright societies are permitted to grant licenses and collect royalty on behalf of their members. In the plaint, the plaintiff has referred to four events that were organized by the first defendant. The fourth of these events is the event at Hosur Mela Ground. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly establish that the songs performed at this event were published by members of the plaintiff society. 7. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff, especially in the factual context of no contra evidence being adduced by the defendants, leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief claimed in the suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to rendition of accounts and a decree of profits in terms thereof. However, while the suit was pending, the first defendant agreed to settle the suit claim by paying a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with GST thereon. Out of this sum, only a sum of about Rs.9,90,000/- was paid. Since the first defendant had repeatedly violated undertakings given to this Court in this regard, by order dated 10.03.2025, the plaintiff was directed to give credit to amounts received until date and prosecute the suit on merits. Out of this sum, only a sum of about Rs.9,90,000/- was paid. Since the first defendant had repeatedly violated undertakings given to this Court in this regard, by order dated 10.03.2025, the plaintiff was directed to give credit to amounts received until date and prosecute the suit on merits. At the hearing today, although the first defendant remains ex parte, learned counsel for the first defendant submitted that the said defendant would pay the outstanding amounts in terms of the settlement on or before 30.06.2025. In view of this submission, in the interest of justice, the decree in relation to rendition of accounts will come into effect on 01.07.2025, if the amount outstanding is not from and out of the above mentioned sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is not paid. If paid, such payment shall be treated as discharge of the obligation and the decree for rendition of accounts and payment in terms thereof shall not come into effect. 8. As the successful party, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,04,125/- as court fee. The plaintiff is entitled to this sum along with reasonable lawyer's fees and costs. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff as costs. 9. By alleging wilful disobedience of orders of interim injunction, the plaintiff had filed A.Nos.1832 & 1833 of 2023. Since the permanent injunctive relief and rendition of accounts are being granted under this judgment, separate orders are not being passed in the said applications and the said applications are hereby closed. 10. In the result, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) of paragraph 61 of the plaint. As regards prayer (c) of paragraph 61, if the the first defendant pays amounts outstanding as per the statement recorded earlier prior to 01.07.2025, there shall be no decree. Otherwise, the decree in respect of prayer (c) of paragraph 61 shall come into operation on 01.07.2025. The defendants are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.