H.T. MEDIA LTD. Vs. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957 against the decision of the Deputy Registrar refusing registration for nine artistic works. Deputy Registrar per his letter dated 23.1.2008 refused registration of all nine artistic works for the reason that the certificates issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks under section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 have not been submitted to the Registrar of Copyright within prescribed period of 90 days. All nine certificates dated 23.7.2007 were sent per covering letter dated 24.7.2007 by the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai to Shri Rajesh Kumar, Delhi, Advocate of the appellant. As per letter dated 22.11.2007 of the office of the Registrar of Copyrights, the said certificates were received in that office on 22.10.2007. Deputy Registrar of Copyright, by his order dated 23.1.2008, observed that the certificates have been filed after 91 days.

(2.) REGISTRAR of Copyrights and the Deputy Registrars of Copyright appointed under section 10 of the Copyright Act, 1957 perform their function in matter of registration of copyright works under section 45 in a quasi -judicial manner. In exercise of this quasi -judicial function, they are required to observe the rules of natural justice as have been laid down under judicial dicta. This is notwithstanding with the express powers conferred under section 74 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Much of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Limitation Act, and the General Clauses Act, 1894 and many other legislations is the embodiment of rules of natural justice and fair play. Registrar or the Deputy Registrar, though not strictly bound by the rules contained in these legislations, can draw liberally from the provisions of these Act in deciding the matters before it to meet the ends of justice. Section 9(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides as under:

(3.) IN summation, we have to observe that appellant -applicant was well within dot period of limitation 90 days as persuasion drawn from the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1894 and the Limitation Act, 1963, reveals that the date of letter dated 24.7.2007 is not to be counted towards the summing of the figure of 90. Notwithstanding this hyper -sensitive counting of figures, letters all dated 24.7.2007 alongwith certificates were sent from Mumbai and all possible presumption of days taken in dispatch and delivery or even personal transmission from Mumbai to Delhi should have been construed in favour of the appellant -applicant. It is true that there is no request from the appellant about condonation of delay which probably has not been made with the assumption that there is none. Even if there be a settled situation of a procedural delay of negligent nature, the Deputy Registrar, being the quasi -judicial, should exercise his powers favourably in this regard. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and remand back the matter to the Registrar for deciding the matter on merits.