TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tember, 2001, whereby it is held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the application filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Board also held that the Copyright Board is, deemed to be the Civil Court only for limited purpose otherwise for all other purposes, Copyright Board is a Tribunal and a quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to any petition or application made under Section 50 of the Act. 3. Mr. R. K. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the respondent herein filed an application under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on 4th May, 2000. According to him, it is filed beyond the time prescribed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 1995 (84) Comp. Cas 62. 4. Mr. Shah pointed out the observations of the Honourable Apex Court made in the matter of Corporation Bank v. Navin J. Shah (supra), which read as under : what is reasonable time to lay a claim depends upon the facts of each case. In the legislative wisdom, three years period has been prescribed as the reasonable time under the Limitation Act to lay a claim for money. We think, that period should be the appropriate standard adopted for computing reasonable time to raise a claim in a matter of this nature. For this reason also, we find the claim made by the respondent ought to have been rejected by the Commission. Mr. Shah submitted that period of three years is held to be a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The learned Advocate for the respondent invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 12(7) which reads as under : The Copyright Board shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and all proceedings before the Board shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He also invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 72 wherein the jurisdiction of Court in the matters arising under this Chapter is provided and finally, he submitted that even under Section 74 of the Copyright Act, Registrar of Copyrights and Copyright Board to possess cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be decided on merits by the Copyright Board. The delay alleged by the present appellant is not believed by the Copyright Board. Entertaining an application is a matter of discretion. In the present case, the Copyright Board in its wisdom, overruling the contention that the application was barred by limitation, decided to entertain the application. It is a discretionary order. It may happen that in the same set of facts, this Court might have taken a different view, but when this Court is examining the decision of the Copyright Board, the same is not required to be set aside without there being an error warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 9. In the alternative, there is a normal trend in favour of condonation of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
