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

1986 Supreme(Mad) 14

NATARAJAN
M/s. Videowala – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.P. Raman, P.S. Raman, P. Chidambaram, R. Thiagarajan, N.R. Chandran, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Both these petitions have been filed by the Film Federation of India, represented by its President, D. Ramanujam. In the former petition the prayer is for vacating the interim stay granted in W.M.P. 15682 of 1984 and in the latter petition the prayer is for the impleadment of the petitioner as a respondent.

2. The impleadment of the petitioner as a party-respondent in the writ petition is opposed by Messrs Videowala, who have filed W.P. 9745 of 1984 and obtained orders of interim stay. The said writ petition has been filed under Art.22b of the Constitution to seek the issue of a writ of declaration to declare certain provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred) to as the amendment Act) insofar as they relate to the petitioner - Video Library, as void and unconstitutional.

3. Having regard to the limited question for consideration in the W.M.P. 16395 of 1984, it is not necessary to set out the provisions of the amendment Act, which are challenged, and the grounds on which the validity of the provisions are questioned. The Film Federation of India seeks impleadment in the writ petition on the ground that the Act has been passed to safeguard the i









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