IMPORTANT POINT
Because one or two programs arranged in past, when defendant was President of Association, it cannot be said that such activity covered under Section 62(2) of Copyright Act, 1957 and it can be said that Association doing business at Aurangabad.

T.V. Nalawade, J.—This Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.2010, in Reg. Civil Suit No.1 of 2010, which was pending in the Court of District Judge, Aurangabad. The plaint of the appellant-original plaintiff is returned by the District Court, Aurangabad for presentation before Appropriate Court.

Both sides are heard finally.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for relief of declaration and injunction against the respondent. A declaration was sought that the plaintiff is owner of the association, named and styled as “Akhil Bharitya Grahak Panchayat”. It is the case of the plaintiff that monogram “Garud” (Eagle) as described in the title clause of the suit belongs to plaintiff- Association. Relief of injunction was claimed to prevent the defendant from using aforesaid name of the association and monogram by the defendant.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff-Association was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 1974 at Delhi and since then it has been using aforesaid name and monogram. It is contended that the plaintiff works for unity of consumers and for their protection. It is contended that the registered office of the plaintiff-Association is situated at Delhi, but field of operation of the plaintiff is spread all over India.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that its Secretary Shri Arun Deshpande is doing; business in Aurangabad and is authorized to file the suit in Aurangabad Court. It is contended that the defendant has started using aforesaid name and monogram when he is not authorized to do so and so suit is required to be filed. It is contended that for sometime the defendant was the President of the plaintiff-Association and subsequently he was appointed as Sanrakshak’ also. It is also contended that though the defendant had contributed in the movement started by Association for consumers, at present he is old and even not a member of the Association.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that when new body of the Association came in existence in the year 2006, defendant wrote a letter to new office bearers to congratulate them and accepted the election. It is contended that behind back of the Association, in the year 2001, the defendant got registered aforesaid title and monogram under the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1957” for short) in is own name and he has shown himself as owner of the title and monogram. It is the case of the plaintiff that from prior to year 2001 plaintiff Association has been using aforesaid title and monogram, so the defendant cannot claim himself as the owner of the title and the monogram.

6. The defendant filed written statement and denied aforesaid contentions made by the plaintiff-Association with regard to ownership of title and monogram. It is the case of the defendant that he invented monogram and he gave aforesaid name to the Association and he is owner of both, the title name and the monogram. It is the case of the defendant that under Act of 1957 he has registered both name and monogram and they belong to him. The defendant filed application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.” for short) and requested the Trial Court to frame preliminary issue in respect of territorial jurisdiction. In the application, he contended that on the basis of pleadings in the plaint it cannot be said that the Court at Aurangabad has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. On this point both sides were heard and preliminary issue was framed. The District Court gave opportunity to both sides to lead evidence, but both sides filed pursis stating that they do not want to lead oral evidence. After hearing both sides, the District Court held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The District Court has considered not only the pleading in the plaint, but it has considered other contentions with regard to correspondence also.

7.