HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) AT the time of completion of the hearing of both the revisional applications, this Court directed these matters to be listed under the heading "For Judgment" today. But due to inadvertence, the matter did not appear for judgment today. The learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties who are present today submit that there is no impediment in delivering the judgment by this Court. By consent of parties, these revisional applications are treated as on day's list and this Court delivers the following judgments.
(2.) THESE two revisional applications are at the instance of the common petitioner against the common opposite parties challenging the orders dated January 14, 2013 and February 13, 2013 respectively passed by Additional District and Session Judge, 4th Court, Barasat in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2012, extending the ad-interim order of injunction dated September 26, 2012 as modified by order dated January 9, 2013 in C.O. No. 4125 ­ 4126 of 2012 by this Court. The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 140 of 2012 which was re-numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 against an order refusing to pass an ex parte order of injunction. Challenging the show cause notice dated August 30, 2012 apparently issued by the Registrar of Copyrights and Director (BP & CR) upon the opposite party nos. 3 & 4, the opposite party no.1 filed the Title Suit No. 194 of 2012 in the 2nd Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat. By the said show cause notice, the Registrar of copyrights in the very opening word indicates that it is forwarding a complaint dated August 9, 2012 received by the Ministry of Human Resource Development relating to the illegalities in administration of the opposite party no.4 and invited the reply on the alleged point of illegalities within ten days from the date of receipt thereof.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the said notice is neither addressed nor issued to the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 but the challenge is thrown on the assertion that the said show cause notice is an outcome of the collusion between the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It further averred that the petitioner has no locus standi being neither the owner of any copyright in respect of musical works or literary works and sound recording nor would be effected by any agreement between the opposite party nos.3 & 4 and with Select Media Holding Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that the said show cause notice which has originated from the complaint of the petitioner who is acting in collusion and connivance with the opposite party nos.3 & 4, is illegal, ultravires, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction.;