Nadira Patherya, J. - (1.) IN a suit for a decree for rendition of true and faithful accounts of undisputed royalty so also appointment of administrator to distribute the royalty and convene a general meeting to elect the governing council of the respondents no. 4 this application has been filed for interim relief. The case of the petitioner is that Section 19(9) of the 1957 Act as amended by the Amendment Act 2012 specifically states that no assignment shall affect the right of the author to claim an equal share of royalties not only in a cinematographic film and also in a work which is not comprised in a cinematographic film Section 19(10) of the Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive royalties from respondent no. 4 which is a copy right society.
(2.) BY virtue of Section 33(3A) of the 2012 Amendment Act an application is to be made for re -registration within the time specified not only under the second proviso of Section 33(3A) of the Amendment Act 2012 but also Rule 47(1) of the 2013 Rules, within the time mentioned in the said Act. An application has been filed by the respondent no. 4 for re -registration. In the process of re -registration a show cause notice was issued to the respondent no. 4 whereby the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights on behalf of the respondent no. 5 has called upon the respondent no. 4 to intimate what steps have been taken to release the royalties due to some of the complainants who had filed complaints with regard to non payment of royalties to authors and music composers. This has been done under Rule 47(3) of 2013 Rules. On a reading of Rule 47 it will be evident that it deals with applications for re -registration or renewal. Admittedly the respondent no. 4 was already registered and needed to be registered under the second proviso of Section 33(3A) all that is required to be done is to re -register the respondent no. 4 without raising any query as raised in the letter dated 24th May 2013 specially (V). It is only in cases of renewal, that Rule 47(3) comes into play and this being not a case of renewal the said query could not have been raised on behalf of the respondent no, 5. By virtue of said queries raised the petitioner apprehends that steps will be taken to disburse the royalties and, therefore, deprive the petitioner receipt of its legitimate royalty. Therefore, orders in terms of prayer (b) and (e) of the notice of motion be passed. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that in view of the order dated 9th January 2013 which has been followed by the order dated 21st February 2013 the show cause notice dated 24th May 2013 is without jurisdiction and, therefore, be stayed. All that the respondent no. 4 is to do is to re -register the respondent no. 4 as a society which is in existence as a registered body and in compliance with the statute the application for re -registration has been filed, therefore, no enquiry is needed and as a matter of course registration should be effected. For registration purposes an application is to be filed with the Registrar of Copyright, who shall submit the application to the respondent no. 5. That has been done, therefore, there is nothing more to be done by the respondent no. 4 or the respondent no. 3 and re -registration be directed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent no. 1 submits that Rule 47(3) has no application at the time of re -registration and, therefore, orders be passed.;