Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6.
2. At the outset, Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal before Jharkhand High Court. In view of that, the Court has called upon him to argue the case with regard to maintainability of this appeal before this Court.
3. Mr. Mayank, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court in view of that fact that it is preferred under section 72(2) of Copy Rights Act, 1957 and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights-respondent no.3 is under challenge and the Office of the Deputy Registrar, Copy Rights is situated at New Delhi. He submits that in view of that only the Delhi High Court is having the jurisdiction. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that the appeal against the orders of the Registrar of Copy Rights in light of Section 72 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 will l
The amended Copyright Act allows appeals to any High Court where the appellant resides or conducts business, not limited to the High Court where the Registrar is located.
The jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 pertains only to the Debts Recovery Tribunal located within its territorial limits, not an appellate tribunal for matters originating outside its ju....
A composite suit involving causes of action under different statutes can only be filed in a court with territorial jurisdiction over both causes of action.
The jurisdiction for challenging appellate tribunal orders lies in the High Court corresponding to the original tribunal's location, affirming the principle that appellate orders merge with original ....
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
The territorial jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions under Article 227 is determined by the location of the original authority, not the appellate authority, as mandated by administrative rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
