The Orissa High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, adjudicated upon an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in ARBP No. 9 of 2024. The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising between the parties, which pertained to the infringement of copyright. The matter raised a pivotal legal issue regarding the arbitrability of copyright-related disputes.

The respondent opposed the application, asserting that disputes concerning the infringement of copyright are non-arbitrable. To substantiate this argument, the opposite party placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation (2020), arguing that such disputes are linked to rights in rem, which are not amenable to arbitration.

It was argued that the petitioner's notice, which sought the appointment of an arbitrator, clearly disclosed that the dispute involved the infringement of copyright, rendering it non-arbitrable. Specific emphasis was placed on paragraph 30 of the Vidya Drolia judgment, which provides, “A judgment in rem determines the status of a person or thing as distinct from the particular interest in it of a party to the litigation; and such a judgment is conclusive evidence for and against all persons whether parties, privies or strangers of the matter actually decided.”

The opposition further highlighted that “arbitration by necessary implication excludes actions in rem,” relying on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the interplay between rights in rem and rights in personam. It was contended that disputes concerning copyright infringement involve the determination of rights in rem and, therefore, fall outside the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals.

In response, the Court meticulously analyzed the judgment in Vidya Drolia and observed that the Supreme Court had explicitly recognized that “a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.” The High Court clarified that the arbitrability of copyright disputes does not stand excluded merely because copyright involves a public right. Instead, it noted that disputes arising from the infringement of copyright against specific persons pertain to rights in personam, which are arbitrable under the law.

Chief Justice Singh rejected the contention advanced by the opposite party, holding it to be “wholly misconceived.” The Court stated, “I do not find at any place in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia (supra), it has been held that dispute relating to infringement of copyright is non-arbitrable.” The judgment emphasized that the Vidya Drolia precedent had not foreclosed the possibility of arbitration in cases involving copyright infringement when the relief sought is enforceable against specific individuals.

Having considered the submissions and the principles established in the Vidya Drolia case, the Court concluded that the dispute in question was arbitrable. Accordingly, the High Court appointed Dr. Justice Akshaya Kumar Rath, a former judge of the Orissa High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The order further directed that the arbitration proceedings be conducted under the aegis of the High Court of Orissa Arbitration Centre, ensuring procedural compliance under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Case Title: Shri Binaya Kumar Naik v. Sanjay Kumar Naik and another

Case No: ARBP No. 9 of 2024

Bench: Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh