SH. PURAN MULTIMEDIA LTD v. UNION OF INDIA

Delhi High Court · 27 Sep 2018 · 2018:DHC:8626
Vibhu Bakhru
W.P.(C) 610/2013
2018:DHC:8626
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking reconstitution of the Copyright Board, holding that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board now exercises its jurisdiction under the amended Copyright Act.

Full Text
Translation output
{ / I b $-15 to 17 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 610/2013 & CM No. 1155/2013
SH. PURAN MULTIMEDIA LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.K. Datta, Adv. With Mr.Ashish Verma & Ms.Prachi Johri, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA AND ORS Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI.
Mr.Neel Mason, Adv. With Ms.Ridhima Pabi & Ms.Sanyukta
Banerj ee, Advs. For R-3.
J/ W.P.(C) 5312/2013 &CM No. 11898/2013 &36671/2018
DHAMAAL 24 RADIO NETWORK LIMITED Petitioner
Through Mr.Angad Dugal, Adv. With Ms.Niyati Asthana & Ms.Shilpa
Gamnani, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Respondents
Through Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv. With Ms.Santwana, Adv. For R-1.
W.P.(C) 9323/2015 & CM No. 21595/2015
HT MUSIC AND ENTERTAINMENT CO. LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Angad Dugal, Adv. With Ms.Niyati Asthana & Ms.Shilpa
Gamnani, Advs.
VERSUS
2018:DHC:8626 UNION OF INDIA &ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
27.09.2018
ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to take immediate steps to reconstitute the Copyright Board in terms ofthe amendment to section 11 pfthe Copyright Act, 1957 as enacted bythe Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.

2. Mr.Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the said prayer has become infructuous as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board has been constituted, which is also to exercise the jurisdiction interms ofsection 11 ofthe Copyright Act 1957 as amended by the Finance Act, 2017.

3. He states that in view of the above, the principal grievance of the petitioners, as raised in the pres.ent petitions, does not survive and no directions in thisregard arerequired to be issued.

4. Section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as amended in the Finance Act, 2017 does not contain any provision for constitution ofa Copyright Board. It enacts that the Appellate Board as constituted under Section 83 of the Trade marks Act 1999, would exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on it byor under thisAct"

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seek to withdraw the present petitions in view of the above statement and the observations made by this Court with hberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board with the remaining reliefs.

6. Thepresentpetitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The pending applications are also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU,J SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 ab