Product(Tp/30/2020/Cr/Ez) vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 2322 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Product(Tp/30/2020/Cr/Ez) vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya And Anr on 25 March, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OIPD-5
                                                                  ORDER SHEET


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION

                                  ORIGINAL SIDE

                                  IPDCR/12/2022

           RAJKUMAR AGGARWAL, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.PETRO

                              PRODUCT(TP/30/2020/CR/EZ)

                                           VS

                   NAND KISHORE BHIMSARIYA AND ANR.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 25th March, 2026.



                                                                                   APPEARANCE:
                   Mr. Sayantan Basu, Sr. Adv.Mr. Tanmoy Roy, Adv.Mr. Koushik Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                                                    For Applicant
                                                   Mr. Sunil Kr. Singhania, Adv.Mr. Asit De, Adv.
                                                                             For respondent no.2

THE COURT: This is an application for rectification of the registration

granted to respondent no.1. The applicant claims that the applicant is a prior

registered holder of the copyright which is still in subsistence. During the

pendency of such registered copyright the application for registration made by

the respondent no.1 has been allowed. The registrar of copyright is respondent

no.2. The respondent no.2 says that under the existing provisions of law there

is no requirement of the registrar informing the applicant about an application

which may infringe the rights of the applicant. It was the obligation of the

respondent no.1 to provide the names of those who will be affected by grant of

the registration. The respondent no.2 relies upon Form XIV to be filled up by

the applicant in terms of Rule XVIII of the Copyright Rules 2013 (wrongly typed

as 2012 in the application Form) while making the application for registration.

The respondent no.2 has in this regard relied upon a single Bench judgment of

Delhi High Court passed on 8th September, 2025 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR)

843/2022 (M/s. New Bharat Overseas Vs. M/s. Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian

Exports Pvt Ltd And Ors.).

The issue in the instant case is, however, not identical.

In the instant case, the applicant holds a registration of the copyright

much prior to the application having been made by the respondent no.1 on the

basis whereof registration had been granted. If the applicant is a registered

owner of the copyright, the registration details ought to have been in the data

base of the registrar(respondent no.2). Assuming without admitting that the

respondent no.1 was obliged under the statute to provide the particulars of the

applicant and having mischievously not done so, the second line of check

guard in view of the applicant holding a registered copyright should have been

a notice issued by the registrar(respondent no.2). Admittedly, no such notice

was issued prior to grant of such registration. The respondent no.1 is not

appearing despite service.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, only for the ends of justice, I

direct the applicant and the respondent no.2 to serve a fresh notice to the

respondent no.1 informing them that this matter will appear in the monthly list

of April 2026.

It is made clear that in the event the respondent no.1 remains

unrepresented on the next date despite service, the matter will be taken up in

its absence.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

Sb/