ABDOOLLA BHAY SARAFALLI Vs. ISMAIL BIN SHAIKH BADAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 6 of Act XX of 1847 to have the name of the appellant expunged from the Catalogue of Books--kept in Bombay under the provisions of Act XXV of 1867--on the ground that he, the applicant, is the assignee from the proprietor, and consequently the proprietor of the copyright in the two hooks, which form the subject of dispute in the case. The learned Judge in the Court of First Instance has acceded to the application, and the respondent has appealed.

(2.) The first and most important question raised on the appeal is that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and that question subdivides itself into two portions. The material, portion of Section 6 of Act XX of 1847 is this: "And it is enacted that, if any person shall deem himself aggrieved by any [entry made under colour of this Act in the said Book of Registry "--that is to say, a book wherein is registered the proprietorship in the copyright of books and assignments thereof and licenses affecting such copyright kept in the office of the Secretary to the Government of India for the Home Department,--" it shall be lawful for such person to apply by motion to the Supreme Court of Calcutta for an order that such entry may be expunged or varied." Then I pass to Section 18 of Act XXV of 1867--an Act for the regulation of printing presses and newspapers, for the preservation of copies of books printed in British India and for the registration of such books. That section provides for the institution in the Presidency cities of India of "a book to be called a Catalogue of Books printed in British India, wherein shall be registered a memorandum of every book, which shall have been delivered pursuant to Section 9 of this Act," and then it proceeds to state what particulars that memorandum shall contain. The really material portion of that section is this: "And the provisions contained in that Act as to the said Book of Registry shall apply mutatis mutandis to the said catalogue." It is contended for the appellant that that provision has ousted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Calcutta specially vested in it by Section 6 of Act XX of 1847.

(3.) It has not been contested that all the powers originally vested in the old Supreme Court in Calcutta are now vested in the High Court. I am unable to take the view contended for by the appellant.