Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of Petro Product Vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya

Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of Petro Product Vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya:05.05.2026: IPDCR/12/2022: 2026:CHC-OS:158:CalHC:Hon’ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee

In this Judgement , the Calcutta High Court set aside the copyright registration granted to Respondent No.1, holding that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rule 70 rendered the registration unsustainable.

Facts & Dispute:

The Petitioner, Rajkumar Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Petro Product, had his artistic work registered as copyright way back in 2009. Respondent No.1, Nand Kishore Bhimsariya, later applied for registration of a similar artistic work. The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 failed to comply with Rule 70(6) and the mandatory notice requirement under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, despite being aware of the Petitioner’s prior registration. Consequently, the Petitioner could not file objections within the 30-day period, and the Registrar of Copyrights granted registration without due verification.

Reasoning of the Court:

Court held that Rules 70(6), 70(9), 70(10), and 70(11) of the 2013 Rules have statutory force and must be mandatorily complied with. The Court observed that Rule 70(9) requires the applicant to give notice to every person who claims interest in or disputes the copyright. Failure to do so prevents affected parties from filing timely objections.

The Court further clarified that even in the absence of objections, Rule 70(10) and 70(11) impose an independent duty on the Registrar to satisfy himself regarding the correctness of the particulars in the application, which may include an inquiry. 

The Registrar’s failure to check existing registrations and ensure procedural compliance amounted to a jurisdictional error. Relying on principles from Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor and other precedents, the Court held that when a statute prescribes a particular manner, it must be followed or not done at all.

Decision:

The Court allowed the rectification application, set aside the copyright registration granted in favour of Respondent No.1, directed its removal from the Register, and rejected the application for non-compliance with mandatory provisions. 

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#CopyrightRegistration, #CopyrightRectification, #Rule70CopyrightRules, #CalcuttaHighCourt, #IPRJudgment, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #CopyrightDispute, #RegistrarOfCopyrights, #IPLitigation, #ArtisticWorkCopyright, #LegalNewsIndia, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor

=====

Mandatory notice requirement under Rule 70(9) of Copyright Rules 2013

Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court has clarified the mandatory obligations of both the person applying for copyright and the Registrar of Copyrights. The decision protects the interests of existing copyright holders and ensures transparency and fairness in the registration process under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Copyright Rules, 2013.

Factual and Procedural Background:

Rajkumar Aggarwal, proprietor of. Petro Product , had obtained copyright registration for his artistic work as far back as 2009. In the year 2022, Nand Kishore Bhimsariya applied for registration of copyright for a similar artistic work. The Registrar of Copyrights granted the registration to Bhimsariya. Feeling that his prior rights were being affected and that proper procedure was not followed, Aggarwal filed a rectification application.

Dispute:

The main dispute centered on whether the copyright registration granted in favour of Nand Kishore Bhimsariya was valid? 

Contention of Parties:

Rajkumar Aggarwal argued that Bhimsariya was fully aware of his earlier 2009 copyright registration, yet he did not give him any notice of the new application as required by law. Because of this, Aggarwal could not file objections within the 30-day period. He further contended that the Registrar failed to properly examine the application and overlooked the existing registration. 

The Registrar of Copyrights maintained that once no objection was received within thirty days, it was bound to grant the registration. Bhimsariya did not appear before the Court despite notice.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:

Court analysed the relevant provisions of the Copyright Rules, 2013 in detail. He pointed out that Rule 70(6) and Rule 70(9) impose mandatory requirements on the applicant. Under Rule 70(9), the person applying for registration must give notice of his application to every person who claims or has any interest in the subject matter of the copyright or disputes the rights of the applicant. 

The Court explained that this notice requirement is crucial because it gives the affected party a real opportunity to object within thirty days.

The Court further examined Rule 70(10) and Rule 70(11). Even if no objection is received, the Registrar must be satisfied about the correctness of the particulars given in the application. This satisfaction is an independent duty. If needed, the Registrar can hold an inquiry. In this case, the Registrar did not check the existing records and therefore failed to notice the petitioner’s prior registration.

Court emphasised that these Rules have the force of law. Court  relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Mandal Singh & Ors., reported in 2011 (11) SCC 702, which held that rules framed under a statute carry a “statutory flavour” and are binding on all.

The Judge also applied the well-settled principle from the Privy Council case Nazir Ahmed Versus Emperor, reported as 1936 Privy Council 253. This principle, followed by the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors. vs. Govind Joti Chavare & Ors., reported in 1975 (1) SCC 559, states that if a statute or rule requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The Court held that non-compliance with the notice requirement under Rule 70(9) by the applicant and the failure of the Registrar to exercise due satisfaction under Rules 70(10) and 70(11) constituted a serious procedural irregularity that went to the root of the registration.

The Court noted that the respondent himself had admitted in his written reply that there was an error on the part of the Registrar in not putting the petitioner on notice. This admission further strengthened the petitioner’s case. The Court described the procedural lapses as creating a jurisdictional error that made the registration unsustainable.

Final Decision of Court and Point of Law Settled:

The Calcutta High Court allowed the rectification application. It set aside the copyright registration granted to Nand Kishore Bhimsariya, directed the Registrar to remove the particulars from the register and database, and rejected the original application for registration. However, the Court granted liberty to Bhimsariya to file a fresh application after complying with all statutory requirements.

This judgment settles an important point of law: Strict compliance with the notice requirement under Rule 70(9) and the Registrar’s independent duty of satisfaction under Rules 70(10) and 70(11) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 are mandatory. Failure to observe these provisions can result in the cancellation of the copyright registration. The ruling reinforces that procedural safeguards are essential to protect prior rights holders and maintain the credibility of the copyright registration system.

Case Title: Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of  Petro Product Vs. Nand Kishore Bhimsariya And Anr.

Date of Order: 5th May, 2026

Case Number: IPDCR/12/2022

Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-05:158

Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arindam Mukherjee

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journal:

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Copyright Registration for Failure to Give Mandatory Notice Under Rule 70, Mandatory Compliance with Copyright Rules 2013 Clarified by Calcutta High Court, Rajkumar Aggarwal Vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya Copyright Rectification Judgment 2026, Registrar of Copyrights Duty of Satisfaction Explained by Calcutta High Court, Importance of Notice to Prior Copyright Holder in Registration Process

SEO Tags:

Copyright Rectification, Calcutta High Court Judgment, Copyright Registration Procedure, Rule 70 Copyright Rules 2013, Intellectual Property Law India, Artistic Work Copyright, Registrar of Copyrights Duties, IP Rectification Petition, Mandatory Notice Requirement Copyright, Nazir Ahmed Principle, Copyright Litigation, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote:

Calcutta High Court sets aside copyright registration due to non-compliance with mandatory notice requirement under Rule 70(9) and Registrar’s failure to satisfy itself under Rules 70(10) & 70(11) of Copyright Rules, 2013 – Strict adherence to procedural safeguards reiterated.

=====