MIDAS HYGIENE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. SUDHIR BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent urges a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present appeals pressing his argument on the basis of his interpretation of the expression 'carries on business' occurring in Section 72(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Briefly, the appellant is aggrieved by an order of the Copyright Board dated 4.4.2011 and has preferred three appeals. At the time of entertainment of these proceedings, liberty was reserved for the appellant to file affidavits and produce such material in support of its assertion that this Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction as was necessary to establish it. The petitioner has relied upon the affidavits of its director Mr. Pranay Kapoor as well as the partners of its agent Mr. Rajesh Sabharwal (of M/s. S.S. Agencies) and Ms. Reena Sabharwal.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that besides these affidavits, there is other independent material in the form of copies of plaint in C.S. (O.S.) No. 1821/1999 filed against the present respondent, alleging trade mark infringement. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on several advertisements placed on record in the said suit 'issued on its behalf by the said M/s. S.S. Agencies from time-to-time at various points of time, i.e. 1998, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2011, etc. in its capacity as the appellant's agent. It is urged that having regard to these circumstances, the appellant squarely falls within the description of one 'carrying on business' within the jurisdiction of the Court through its exclusive agent M/s. S.S. Agencies.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent, who objected to the maintainability of the appeals, placed reliance on the judgment in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, 2006 AIR(SC) 730 and argued that the said judgment is an authority for the proposition that a person is situated-- (where he carries on business through an agent), only if, the agent is a special agent who attends exclusively to the business of the principal. In other words, Mr. Bhatia, learned Counsel for the respondent objector urges that M/s. S.S. Agencies ought to be the exclusive agent of the appellant to fulfil the requirement of Section 72(2). According to Mr. Bhatia, all the materials on record suggest that M/s. S.S. Agencies is not the exclusive agent of the appellant, but it also acts an agent of other business vendors and entities.