GRAMOPHONE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. versus BIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 21-02-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. , 
I. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
•. 
'GRAMOPHONE ·coMPANY OF IN~IA LTD. 
:,. 
-J v. 
B!R.ENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY & . ORS. 
Ftbraury 21 ,' '1984 
. 
' 
} 
. 
[0. CHINMAPPA REDDY, E.S. YENKATARAMIAH A..'ID R.B.MISRA, JJ.j 
' 
. 
' 
Cl1pJ'rltht Act, 1955-J.O, 51 11rrd SJ-w11rd 'import'-m~aninz of. Char«-
t~r oferdtr uruhr s. 53-quasi-judicial, 
. JntD1tt1tlona/ La,.._WMtlJU bet:om~s part of municipal law without aid of 
m~ipa} ltD!ui~Whtt!Je~ OoemQt mwt/cipa~ {uw /fl COIC of c~l!/ffct. 
/ltter~~atlona{ Law-Rule rttardill¥ ri¥1tl of land: locked states of innoctnl 
I''"Ml¥' of too<h acr;ss a'fiOthtr state. 
l'ractice-Couru nu.,t lnterprtt Mtlona/ law in a way io as '" a•·oid con· 
/rolltallDn Willr lntvnatlo1111l low. 
. 
lnterprttatk,,._p,u[e of-While l~ltrpretlnt ""'rds tJf•rcfinarypar{artt:l ufi 
rnrct 111 dlctlonar/n of 110 tZYI/, 
• · 
• 
• 
lly trea;~ and by inlematiooal convcntibn. lndia allo;,.,s transit fac!liti~ 
to Nepal, ha lltlJ.'lbour and a land-locked country. 
A companY bouc:d 111 
K3thnandu 
N~"'·1 · 
ned 
. 
• · 
t•-
froiD 
. 
' : .-
•mPO 
a consramuent of pro-recor.Jcd cassc ''" 
S•apporo whidt ..,.._ ~waitin; itt despatch to Nepal at Calcutta Port. IU tbo 
\. 
I 
• .. 
. J 
. 
' 
'• 
. ____.. 
·. 
( 
/ 
"· ' . 
.. 
I • 
I 
·I. 
'oRAMOPHONE· ell). v. B. B: P.ANDI5Y 
665 
,. 
~ a~pellant c~rupany suspected those cassettes. toJbe unauthorised' rep,roduction' of 
its r~ords' and • cassettes, 'the import of which ipJo India :was ,Prohibited, tlte 
appe!)ant-c_ompal,lY nro"9ed. the Ragistra·r 4>f Copyrights for action·under s.53 of 
the cOpyright Act; 1957 which· enables the. R~gistrar, after. lil.aking such en~ 
quaries .as he deeme.4 fit, to order that copies made ' out of india of a work .whk.h 
if made in india .would infringe copyright, shall .110t be importe<l. · A.s the Regis-
trar~ did. not take expenditi~us action,• the ippella,nt:compapy moved the High 
Court by a writ petition. A single Jr;dge made an interim· ,oJder permitting the 
appeliant-company. -to inspect the 
consignme~t ~nd if any of the cassettes were 
1 found to have infi·inged. the · appellarH's copyhght, 1hey were to be kept apart 
until further o~ders of the Registrar. The . Registrar ·.was directed to deal with 
the application of the appe]lant~company. in ACCOrd~nce.with)a:.... The s:onsi'gnee 
preferred an· appeal against this o~def of ftbe single ·Judge .. A' Division)3ench of 
•. the ·High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the, writ petition of the appellant· 
cpmpimy. 
The Division Bench heid, that there was no i¢p~rtation when·~the 
goods entered. India tJn route to Nepal. - 'The Divisic;>D Bench was of the view; th&t 
the ,word 'import' did not merely ·tneart bringing thd, goods into India, but com-
.. prehended something more,' that 'is, "incorpor~tiog and. mixing, or 'mixing up of. 
the goods imported with the rilass of the property in tb~· local area". The 
. company obtained special leave' to appeal. The questions which arose were : . 
_(i) 
wh~ther international law . is, ·of, its own force, drawn ifito 'the law .of the 
land without the aid of a municipal-statute, '(ii) whether, so drawn, it o~errid~ 
municipal Jaw in case of conflict~ (iii). whether there is any · weli estabiished rule' · 
· of :internat'ioiral law on the question ·of the right of-land-locked stat01 to inno· · 
'~~t . passage ~f the goods across. 'til~;'.~oil or another state; and' (iv). ;,bat js 
the meaning of the,\\ ord 'i~poll' usco_ in s53 ·of the Copyright Act. 
'lo..o~~. 
' 
• • 
• 
:-~ 
~ ' 
• 
i 
~ 
. 
..··, 
.. I., 
Allowing. the ap{>eal, 
. I 
HELD: 
... 
- . 
. ;:: On qutstions (i); & (ii)"! 
~ 
.. 
. . . 
. . 
· ..,...,...,,.:-;.;;: :rhere'can be np question that rlations must march with ~c (~~ational - : 
~mrnunity an'd the municipal law must respect ruloa of .. international law oven ac 
· 
•.. nations respect international ~pinion .. ~ The ~mity of' nations requires that rules 
of international law may ·be ·accommodated in ,the· mumcipal law even without 
· expt~ legislative ·.sanction provided tl)ey d~ no_t run into copfiict with Acts of 
Parliament. But when they do run into such conffict~ the sovereignty and the 
. integrit-Y. of the republic 11nd the Sl!pe~acy -~f- tho c<institut~ legislatures in 
c 
·D 
E 
., F 
H 
B 
.c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
. I 
· ~. 
6&6 
SUPRI!MB COUltT REPORTS 
[ 1984) 2 tc.-. 
making the lawS:=Y oot ,be ·subjected to e~tern;1l rules except to the 
1 
·. Jeeitimltely accepted by the consituted legislatures themselves.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.