RANCHI, India, May 30 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 30:
1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6.
2. At the outset, Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal before Jharkhand High Court. In view of that, the Court has called upon him to argue the case with regard to maintainability of this appeal before this Court.
3. Mr. Mayank, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court in view of that fact that it is preferred under section 72(2) of Copy Rights Act, 1957 and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights-respondent no.3 is under challenge and the Office of the Deputy Registrar, Copy Rights is situated at New Delhi. He submits that in view of that only the Delhi High Court is having the jurisdiction. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that the appeal against the orders of the Registrar of Copy Rights in light of Section 72 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 will lie to the High Court and in view of that fact that the Office of the Registrar is at Delhi and only Delhi High Court is having the jurisdiction. He also draws the attention of the Court to the fact that the Copy Rights Act, 1957 has been further amended in the year 2021 and it has effected with effect from 04.04.2021. He submits that in the old Act, before the amendment, the appeal will lie to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellant actually and voluntarily resides or carrying out the business or purposely works for gain. He submits in view of that the Jharkhand High Court sitting as appellate Court have got no jurisdiction. According to him, this is not the case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and exceptions are there. According to him, the statute speaks that the appeal will lie before the Delhi High Court and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 and he refers to the paragraph nos.13 and 38 of the said judgment which are given below:
13. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, exercises jurisdiction over all the three States. In all the three States there are High Courts. In the event, the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominus litis, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or courts or tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqJ3Yip%2FsZDCnPtmUSjkqJSJNNKfThz1gFwu2sLjtrFe7&caseno=MA/316/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010286422024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
