Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This judgment and order would dispose of 11 appeals, which are filed by the appellant and which are directed against the order passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi.

2. The aforesaid cases were registered on the basis of 11 petitions filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act praying for an order to expunge 11 copyright registrations made in favour of the respondent for 11 books written by late His Highness Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. The aforesaid 11 petitions were filed as 11 copyright registrations were made pertaining to 11 separate books, which were written by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj.

3. Since the subject matter of all the petitions was similar and the issues raised in all the 11 petitions were also similar in nature, the Copyright Board disposed of all these 11 petitions by a common order.

4. Being aggrieved by the said common order passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi, 11 appeals were filed in this court, which we propose to dispose of by this common judgment and order as the issues raised before us are also similar to those raised before the Copyright Board.

5. The appellant herein is the representative of a Trust being a trustee thereof. According to him, he has been authorized by the other trustees to file the appeals on behalf of the Trust. The avowed object of the Trust is said to be to propagate the message of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj for the upliftment and general welfare of the country by holding satsangs, meetings for exchange of religious ideas, discourses on Ramayana, Bhagwat Gita, etc. and to propagate his teachings by the publications of aphis books at subsidized cost.

6. It was alleged that the respondent trust had fraudulently got the registration of 11 books written by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj in the Copyright Register representing falsely that it is the owner of the copyright in all the 11 books. It was further alleged that all the registered works are wrongly made and are wrongly remaining on the register. They are, therefore, required to be expunged as the said works were the works written by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj and also published by him and it is he, who is the author of all the works under Section 17 of the. It was alleged that neither he had assigned any of the aforesaid works to anyone during his lifetime nor he had bequeathed his rights to the works to anyone and that there could also be no transmission of the said rights in favour of the respondent. It was also submitted before the Copyright Board that the appellant is a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 50 of the Copyright Act and Rules and, therefore, they have a right to seek for expunction of the registration of the aforesaid books.

7. All the aforesaid petitions which were filed were contested by the respondent contending, inter alia, that the respondent trust was established in 1936 and that the present respondent trust has been printing and publishing all the works of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj at subsidized price for the purpose of freely spreading the message of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj to all the people as desired by him. It was also stated that all the original trustees of the trust constituted in 1936 are dead except for one, namely, Shri S.P. Virmani, who is now the Chairman of the respondent trust. It was stated in the written statement filed that the appellant and most of the trustees of the appellant were associated with the respondent trust till the year 1994 and that some of the said trustees disassociated themselves from the respondent trust and registered a separate trust in 1994. It was suggested that the respondent trust was assigned with the copyright as the said trust was publishing the works of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj even during his lifetime with his approval and that he had also authorized the respondent trust to publish some of his works through others and to receive royalty. It is also stated that since the respondent has been carrying out the said publication of the works of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj at subsidized prices in order to propagate and to spread the message of the HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj to all the people, it ever occurred to the respondent that someone would content the authority of the respondent trust but when some of the persons like the appellant got disassociated themselves from the respondent trust and registered a trust separately in 1994 and also because some other publishers also had been attempting to publish the works of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj at a profit, the respondent trust chose to register the aforesaid 11 works in 1994 under the provisions of the Copyright Act. It was categorically denied that any false statement was made by the respondent trust at any point of time before any authority or that it had fraudulently got the works registered in its name.

8. Counsel for the respondent trust submitted that as the respondent till date has never threatened the appellant with any legal or other action and has not served any cease and desist notice on the appellant, despite the fact that the appellant has been printing and publishing books authored by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj and although the appellant has been purchasing some books from the respondent, therefore, the appellant could never be said to be a person aggrieved.

9. The learned Copyright Board considered the various contentions raised on behalf of the parties and after going through the said records, the Copyright Board by a majority judgment held that the respondent trust had the blessings of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj and also that the respondent trust had chosen to register 11 works with a genuine desire to prevent unscrupulous and profit making publishers. It was also held that the appellant herein is not a person aggrieved in the light of the decided case and that it had no locus standi to file the petition for cancellation of registration as there is no authorization given to any of them either by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj or the Trust and also because the appellant trust had also been buying books from the respondent. In the light of the aforesaid observations and the findings recorded that the appellant trust has no locus standi and is not a person aggrieved, the petitions filed by it were held to be without merit and the same were accordingly dismissed.

10. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Copyright Board is under challenge in these appeals on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11. Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act to substantiate his submission that the appellant trust is a person aggrieved and relying on the same, he submitted that the appellant, therefore, had a right to maintain all the aforesaid petitions. The counsel also submitted that the appellant trust is constituted for propagation of messages given by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj and also to publish spiritual books including the books written by him and, therefore, the copyright unlawfully obtained by the respondent trust would create illegal monopoly in favour of the respondent trust to print and publish the works of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj in which Swami Ji himself never claimed any right in his lifetime. It was submitted that after registration of the copyright in favour of the respondent, there would always be a lurking threat of infringement action being taken against the appellant trust, which was also printing and publishing the works of Swami Ji for general public without profit motive. According to them the impugned registration of the copyright in favour of the respondent trust would substantially damage the interest and the object of the appellant trust and would also be prejudicial to the legal right of the appellant to propagate the teachings of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. The counsel submitted that the Copyright Board although came to a finding to the effect that the respondent trust was not the owner of copyright as it could not produce any evidence to prove its ownership over the work in question, yet it misdirected itself to dismiss the rectification petitions on the ground that the appellant was not the person aggrieved.

12. The aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the appellant were, however, refuted by the counsel for the respondent trust. He submitted that under no circumstances the appellant trust could be held to be a person aggrieved as the appellant had not been prevented or threatened by the respondent at any point of time by initiating any legal action or any other such action for printing, publishing and distributing the books written by Swami Ji. He also submitted that the respondent trust has no objection to the printing, publishing and distributing of all the 11 books by the appellant so long as the same is done for propagating the teachings of Swami Ji and when such publication is made not with the profiteering motive and the works remain exact replica without any alteration, distortion etc. In support of the said contention, the respondent has also filed an affidavit in this court, which is sworn by Shri S.P. Virmani, who is the Chairman of the respondent trust.

13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties, we have examined the records very minutely. The 11 petitions which were filed by the appellant were dismissed by the majority decision of the Copyright Board, New Delhi on the round that the appellant is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 50 of the Copyright Act. Section 50 of the said Act reads as follows:

“The Copyright Board, on application of the Registrar of Copyrights or of any person aggrieved, shall order the rectification of the Registers of Copyrights by

(a) the making of any entry wrongly omitted to the register, or

(b) the expunging of any entry wrongly made in, or remaining on, the register, or

(c) the correction of any error or defect in the register.”

14. According to the appellant, clause (b) thereof of Section 50 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of theby the counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the envisages registration of the copyright only when the application for registration of the copyright is made either by the owner or his/her assignee or by a person acquiring a right over it through transmission. As and when such an application is filed, the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 would get attracted. The counsel also submitted that the procedure as to how assignment of a copyright is to be made or done is statutorily prescribed and that any registration done not in conformity with or in violation of the said provisions, the copyright is required to be expunged as the said entries are wrongly made or wrongly remaining in register.

15. We have carefully scrutinized the aforesaid provisions. The provisions of Sections 16 to 21 would be applicable and are required to be considered and analyzed when a decision is to be rendered as to whether or not a copyright registration has been legally done. However, for doing the same, a pre-condition is to be satisfied which requires that an application for the aforesaid purpose is to be filed by a person aggrieved requesting for expunging such registration in accordance with the provisions of

Section 50 of the. The appellant, therefore, has first to satisfy the said pre-condition and establish his right that he is a person aggrieved prior to taking an action for cancellation of the registration of copyright obtained by the respondent.

16. Counsel for the appellant also could not dispute the aforesaid position and, therefore, he made an earnest endeavour to prove and establish before us that Section 50 of theis attracted in the present case as the appellant is a person aggrieved. He has drawn our attention to various decisions including one decision of the Supreme Court in support of his submission and statement that the appellant is a person aggrieved.

17. The aforesaid expression person aggrieved is not defined in the Copyright Act. It is also agreed to by the counsel appearing for the parties that there is no decision by any High Court or of the Supreme Court under the Copyright Act laying down a law as to who could be said to be a person aggrieved. It was further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that similar expression person aggrieved is also found mentioned in the provisions of Trade Marks Act, particularly the provisions of Section 57 of The Trade Marks Act, which empowers the Appellate Board and the Registrar to cancel or vary the registration and to rectify the register. The said provision also envisages the procedure for filing an application for cancellation or varying the registration of a trade mark and for rectification of the register by a person aggrieved. The said expression came to be interpreted in some of the decisions, which were placed before us.

18. Reference was made in this connection by the counsel appearing for the appellant to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Bell Co. and Gupta Industrial Corporation vs. Metal Goods. Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 1971 SC 898 [LQ/SC/1970/152] . Counsel also referred to us the decision of the Madras High Court in Lakshmi Narayan Karva and others v. Satyanarayanan Khubchand Karva reported in AIR 1975 Madras 112. In the said decision, the decision of the Supreme Court in National Bell co. (supra) was relied upon. The counsel also placed before us the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Mac. Laboratories Private Ltd. v. American Home Products Corporation and another reported in AIR 1969 Calcutta 342 and on the decision of Aktiebolaget Jonkoping Vulcan v. V.S.V. Palanichamy Nadar and others reported in AIR 1969 Calcutta 43. He also drawn our attention to the some other decisions, namely, Raghubhar Dayal v. Vaid Prem Sagar Aggarwal and Another, 1985 PTC 201; Registered Trade Marks of the Apollinaris Company Limited, 8 RPC 137, In the matter of Powell’s Trade Mark 11 RPC 4, In the matter of Talbot’s Trade Mark 11 RPC 77 and In the matter of the Registered Trade Mark of Sidney Ord. and Co. 30 RPC 725. He also referred to the Law Lexicon.

19. There is no dispute to the fact that all the aforesaid 11 books were written and authored by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. The said 11 books are the subject matter of the present dispute. Both the parties claim to be dedicated and staunch devotees of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj and their avowed object also appears to be the same i.e. to propagate the teachings and messages of Swami Ji. It is unfortunate that with the aforesaid avowed object they are quarreling and fighting over the rights of the books admittedly authored and written by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. It is also regrettable that the court has to step in to decide a dispute which is purely religion oriented.

20. The respondent trust was founded and constituted in May 1936 during the lifetime of Swami Ji. The original trustees have all died except for Shri S.P. Virmani, who is still active and is looking after the management and functioning of the respondent as its Chairman. A minute book of the said trust is placed before us for our perusal. We have with intense interest perused the said minute book. On browsing through the pages of the said minute book, we find that resolutions taken by the trustees in respect of various activities of the trust including printing and publishing the works of Swami Ji are recorded with effect from 30.3.1948. Some of the resolutions refer to the publication and printing of all the books in dispute and their distribution. Therefore, it is established from the said records that the aforesaid books, which were authored by Swami Ji were given to the appellant by the owner for printing and publishing the same and also for its distribution. It was, therefore, authorized deal with the said books for the purpose of printing and also for their publication and distribution with the knowledge and consent of Swami Ji. In fact by resolution taken on 16.8.1948, the respondent trust resolved to grant permission to M/s Rajpa and Sons, New Delhi, to print SHRIMAD DAYANAND PRAKASH, holy work of Swami Ji Maharaj. Shri Ganga Vishnu Raheja, the appellant herein, and also Shri Brij Mohan Malhotra, who disassociated and came out of the respondent trust allegedly in 1994 were also invited to the said meeting of the trust as special invitees, which they attended. Shri Brij Mohan Malhotra, who is at present the trustee of the appellant trust was also present in a meeting of the respondent trust held on 25.3.1982 in which a resolution was passed whereby Shri Prem Nath Ji was authorized to take action regarding copyright in the works of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. It is true that Swami Ji never claimed any copyright for any works authored by him. Rather he authorized and gave the said 11 books to the respondent trust to get them printed and published and also to distribute the same amongst his devotees. The said works were being made available to the general public by the respondent trust since then without any profit motive which is clearly reflected and established from the resolutions in the minute book. In fact the trustees of the appellant were also part of the respondent trust till 1994 and till then took active steps for getting the said books printed, published and distributed through the respondent trust. Apparently, some of the devotees including the present trustees fell out with the trustees of the respondent and they disassociated themselves from the respondent trust and in 1994 they established and started a new trust, which is the appellant trust. It appears that at that stage the respondent trust became apprehensive regarding the object and design of the appellant trust and consequently they immediately rushed to the Copyright Board to get its name registered in the register of the copyright in respect of all the 11 books authored by HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. They claimed before the Board that they have derived rights over the aforesaid books including copyright being the trust, which was constituted during the lifetime of Swami Ji and still continuing to discharge the responsibilities entrusted by Swami Ji. The aforesaid applications filed by the respondent trust were considered and on the basis thereof and consideration of all the aforesaid fact, registration of Copyright of 11 books was ordered in favour of the respondent trust.

21. The issue, therefore, which falls for our consideration, is whether the appellant could be said to be a person aggrieved who can seek for cancellation of the registration of copyright in respect of all 11 books authored by Swami Ji and registered in favour of the respondent trust. The aforesaid issue was the bone of contention between the parties before the Copyright Board, which held that the appellant is not a person aggrieved. The same question, therefore, arises before us for our consideration as to whether or not the appellant could be said to be a person aggrieved. The said expression is not defined either under the Copyright Act or under the Trade Marks Act. The object and the intention of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act is not the same. The purpose for which the aforesaid two Acts were enacted and as stated in the statement of objects and reasons are distinctly different. Still it does not preclude us from looking into a similar expression and the interpretation and meaning given to the same expressions under different legislations. In the decision in National Bell co. (supra), a meaning and interpretation is given to the expression aggrieved person with reference to Trade Marks Act. According to the said decision, the said expression includes a person against whom infringement action is taken or threatened.

22. We may at this stage appropriately refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hardie Trading Ltd. and another v. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 92 [LQ/SC/2003/918] . In the said decision the Supreme Court noticed the expression person aggrieved as appearing in Sections 46, 56 and 69 of the Trade Marks Act. In paragraph 31 and 32 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed thus:

31. In our opinion the phrase “person aggrieved” for the purposes of removal on the ground of non-use under Section 46 has a different connotation from the phrase used in Section 56 for cancelling or expunging or varying an entry wrongly made or remaining in the Register.

32. In the latter case the locus standi would be ascertained liberally, since it would not only be against the interest of other persons carrying on the same trade but also in the interest of the public to have such wrongful entry removed. It was in this sense that the House of Lords defined “person aggrieved” in the matter of Powells Trade Mark [(1894) 11 RPC 4]:

“... although they were no doubt inserted to prevent officious interference by those who had no interest at all in the register being correct, and to exclude a mere common informer, it is undoubtedly of public interest that they should not be unduly limited, inasmuch as it is a public mischief that there should remain upon the register a mark which ought not to be there, and by which many persons may be affected, who, nevertheless, would not be willing to enter upon the risk and expense of litigation. Whenever it can be shown, as here, that the applicant is in the same trade as the person who has registered the trade mark, and wherever the trade mark, if remaining on the register, would, or might, limit the legal rights of the applicant, so that by reason of the existence of the entry on the register he could not lawfully do that, which, but for the existence of the mark upon the register, he could lawfully do, it appears to me he has a locus standi to be heard as a person aggrieved.”

(emphasis supplied)

23. In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar and others, (1975) 2 SCC 702 [LQ/SC/1975/278] , a Seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held in paragraph 27, as follows:

“The words “person aggrieved” are found in several statutes. The meaning of the words “person aggrieved” will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. Sometimes, it is said that the words “person aggrieved” correspond to the requirement of locus standi which arises in relation to judicial remedies.”

24. Therefore, in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, we may proceed to examine the issue that arises for our consideration in these appeals with reference to the facts disclosed from the records.

25. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that after aforesaid registration of copyright, the respondent trust would take out an infringement action against the appellant and that there is every possibility of legal action being take against the appellant trust by the respondent trust, who is now the registered owner of the copyright and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of these cases.

26. When some of the trustees including Shri Ganga Vishnu Raheja, who has filed the present appeal, disassociated themselves from the respondent trust and registered a trust in 1994 for the purpose of publishing the books of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj, the respondent trust chose to register the aforesaid 11 works in 1994. It is also established from the records that since 1994 till date, the respondent trust which is the copyright owner of the aforesaid 11 books, has not initiated any action of infringement of the copyright nor it has threatened the appellant that it would initiate any such action for publishing, printing and distributing the books of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. On the other hand, a statement was made, which is supported by an affidavit filed by one of the original trustees and the present Chairman of the respondent trust that the respondent trust has no objection to the publication of the impugned books by the appellant so long as the same is not done for profiteering and the works remain exact replica without any alteration, distortion etc.

27. In view of the aforesaid position and statement, it cannot be said that the appellant is in any manner threatened by the respondent trust or that any infringement action is taken by the respondent trust for infringement of the copyright. Neither the appellant nor the respondent could be said to be rival traders as their avowed object is only to propagate and spread the message and teachings of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj throughout the world through the aforesaid 11 publications, which are printed, published and distributed both by the respondent trust as also by the appellant trust without any profit motive. In fact, we find from the records that the appellant has purchased books from the respondent trust for the purpose of distributing the same amongst the devotees. In the year 1995-96 as also in subsequent years upto 2002-2003 purchases were made by the appellant trust from the respondent trust. Therefore, neither the appellant trust nor the respondent trust could be said to be rival traders as none of them has the motive of making any trade with profit motive in respect of the aforesaid books. It is well established that when there is free distribution of goods as advertising media cannot be regarded as trading in those goods within the context of the definition of trade mark. In absence of any profit motive and with the aim and object of propagating certain message and teachings of a religious head books are distributed amongst the devotees and public through sale at subsidized rate and on cost basis none of the parties hereto could be regarded as carrying on trading activities on sale of books as is understood in common parlance and also as is understood in the context of the Trade Marks Act. Therefore, none of the parties hereto could be said to be in trading activities and none of them is actually in the trade of selling books for profit authored by Swami Ji. The aim and object of both the trusts are common and the same being to propagate and spread the message and teachings of Swami Ji. They have a common goal and in fact, the respondent trust is helping and rendering its assistance to the appellant by giving their publications to the appellant for distribution of the same to the general public including the devotees.

28. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there could be no grievance of the appellant in respect of the said 11 books as no damage of any manner is being caused to the appellant by the respondent trust nor any prejudice is being caused to the appellant even if the aforesaid registration in the copyright register in favour of the respondent trust is allowed to be maintained.

29. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Hardie Trading Ltd. (supra), while discussing the true meaning and concept of the expression “person aggrieved” reliance was placed in Powell’s Trade Mark. In the said decision, a passage from the judgment of Lord Herschell was quoted wherein the Hon’ble Judge sought to give a meaning to the aforesaid expression “person aggrieved”. One of the qualifying factors which was considered was that the person must be in the same trade as the person who has registered the trade mark; the second factor was the trade mark itself, which on remaining on the Register, would curtail or limit the legal rights of the aggrieved person and the last qualifying factor which also is necessarily to be present is that due to existence of such an entry on the Register, the concerned aggrieved person is unable to do which he could have otherwise lawfully do. When the aforesaid three qualifying factors are present in the case of a person, he is held to be a person aggrieved by Lord Herschell.

30. On careful scrutiny of the records in the present case and in the light of the decisions herein before referred, we find that none of the aforesaid factors could be said to be present in the present case in favour of the appellant to give him a locus standi and to make him a “person aggrieved”.

31. If the name of the respondent trust exists in the Register as copyright owner of the 11 books authored by Swami Ji, the same would guard and prevent mis-user and distortion of the said 11 books by unscrupulous businessmen. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and with particular regard to the statements in the affidavit and the fact that the appellant is a breakaway group of the main trust, the respondent, it is held that the appellant could not prove and establish that it in any manner a person aggrieved.

32. They have a common object in mind of propagating the teachings and the messages of HH Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj not only amongst the devotees but all amongst the general public. In terms of the statement made before us, both the trusts would be entitled to print, publish and distribute the books to whomsoever and whenever they desire to do so. We, therefore, hold that the appellant cannot have any grievance and is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of the provisions of Section 50 of the copyright Act. We fully uphold the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Board in its majority order in respect of the disputes raised before it. We also take on record the statements made in the affidavit filed by the respondent to which reference is made herein before and order that no impediment shall be created and no obstruction shall be made by the respondent society in printing, publishing and distribution of the said 11 works authored by Swami Ji so long as the same is done by the appellant without any profit motive and without any distortion of the works. We, therefore, dispose of all these petitions with the aforesaid observation and holding that the appellant herein is not an aggrieved person in any manner, who can maintain a petition as envisaged under Section 50 of the Copyright Act.

33. However, before parting with the records, we would like to express our trust and hope that instead of trying to reach the Court with litigations on the subject, both the trusts should help each other in trying to reach the public including the devotees with the message and teachings of Swami Ji. That only will provide fulfillment of their objects and aims.

34. The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.