JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, ACJ

Three issues that arise for our consideration are: First, whether this appeal under Section 72(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 is maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by the Copyright Board. In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative and we rely, inter alia, upon Shah Babula Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr, (1981) 4 SCC 8 for our conclusion.

Second, assuming this appeal to be competent, whether the impugned orders passed by the Copyright Board are sustainable in law. In our opinion, the answer to this question must be a qualified affirmative.

Third, whether the helplessness expressed by learned counsel for the parties with regard to the administrative support given to the Copyright Board (for which, admittedly, the Board is not to be blamed) can be ameliorated. We propose to take up this issue altogether separately since we find that though there is a great deal that needs to be remedied it is beyond our jurisdiction in this appeal.

2. The Appellant is aggrieved by two orders passed by the Copyright Board. They are dated 25th August, 2009 and 26th August, 2009. The first grievance is that the Appellant was not allow