SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 180

PANDRANG ROW
S. Dharmalinga Nayakar – Appellant
Versus
D. Balasubramania Ayyar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the order of the City Civil Judge, Madras,, returning the plaint in O.S. No. 566 of 1932 for presentation to the proper Court The plaintiff sued for four reliefs. Two of them related to the copyright claimed by him in a certain book known as "Gopal New Tamil Reader No. 1," and so far as these reliefs were concerned the learned City Civil Judge was of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to grant these reliefs, and his view is obviously correct. "Under Section 13, Copyright Act, every suit or other civil proceeding regarding infringement of copyright shall be instituted and tried in the High Court or the Court of the District Judge. The City Civil Court does-not come under either of these categories-and it is obvious that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Section 3, City Civil Court Act, which constituted the Court does not avoid the effect of a specific provision like Section 13, Copyright Act. Section 3, City Civil Court Act, gives general jurisdiction to the City Civil Court, but the Copyright Act which deals with the special subject matter of copyright clearly restricts jurisdiction to hear a suit or proceeding relating to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top