9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Mr. C.M. Eastley is the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs. 2. Whether Mr. Eastley is the recognised agent of the plaintiffs. 3. Whether the plaint is properly signed and verified. 4. Whether there was an infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright on March 23, 1937. 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any, and if so, what relief. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constituted Attorney of Plaintiffs: The court examined whether Mr. C.M. Eastley was the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs. The power-of-attorney dated March 10, 1932, was in favor of the members of Messrs. Little & Co., including Mr. Eastley. The defendants argued that the seal of the company could not be affixed without a resolution of the directors and in the presence of at least two directors and the secretary. However, a true copy of the resolution was produced, and the power-of-attorney was duly executed and attested by a Notary Public of London. Under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court presumed proper execution and authentication of the power-of-attorney. The court found the power-of-attorney properly executed and answered the issue in the affirmative. 2. Recognised Agent of Plaintiffs: The court considered whether Mr. Eastley was the recognised agent of the plaintiffs under Order III, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule allows appearances, applications, or acts in court by a party in person or by a recognised agent holding a power-of-attorney. The defendants argued that an attorney of the High Court could act only under a special power-of-attorney. The court clarified that an attorney could act under both a general and a special power-of-attorney, while a non-attorney could act only under a general power-of-attorney. The court held that Mr. Eastley was the recognised agent of the plaintiffs and answered the issue in the affirmative. 3. Proper Signing and Verification of Plaint: The court examined whether the plaint was properly signed and verified. Under Order XXIX, Rule 1, suits by a corporation may be signed and verified by the secretary, a director, or other principal officer. The court referred to the precedent set in Calico Printers' Association v. Karim & Bros, which held that Order XXIX, Rule 1, does not exclude the operation of Order VI, Rules 14 and 15. The plaint was signed by Mr. Eastley as the constituted attorney, and the court had already validated his appointment. The verification was done as per Order VI, Rule 15, specifying what was verified from personal knowledge and what was based on information believed to be true. The court found the plaint properly signed and verified and answered the issue in the affirmative. 4. Infringement of Copyright on March 23, 1937: The court evaluated whether there was an infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants relayed the musical composition "Classica" in their restaurant on the said date. The defendants denied the infringement and claimed they were authorised to relay music by the Secretary of State. The court noted that the defendants had a radio set installed and relayed music from the Bombay Broadcasting Station. The plaintiffs' witness, Mr. Joseph Phillip De Costa, testified that he heard "Classica" being relayed in the defendants' restaurant on March 23, 1937. His testimony was supported by Mr. Dholekar and the Studio Log Book. The court found the defendants' proprietor, Mr. Irani, untruthful and held that there was an infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright on the said date. 5. Relief Entitlement: The court considered the relief to which the plaintiffs were entitled. Under Section 8(1) of the English Copyright Act of 1911, incorporated into the Indian Copyright Act, the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction if the infringement was innocent. The defendants did not allege or prove the infringement was innocent. The court awarded the plaintiffs an injunction for the full term of their copyright in "Classica" and assessed damages at Rs. 50. The plaintiffs were also entitled to costs of the suit, including the cost of evidence taken on commission. Interest on the judgment was set at six percent per annum until payment. Conclusion: The court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all issues, granting an injunction, damages of Rs. 50, and costs of the suit.
|
