Having companysidered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, and taking into companysideration the fact that the subject matter of challenge in these Special Leave Petitions is an order passed by the High Court refusing to grant interim stay of the order of the Copyright Board and the subject matter of the appeal pending before the High Court is the method to be adopted for assessing the companypensation payable, we are of the view that numberinterference is called for at this stage in these Special Leave Petitions.
The said order of the Copyright Board was questioned by both the parties in appeal and cross appeal before the Bombay High Court, which by an order dated 13th April, 2004, set aside the order of the Copyright Board, allowed the appeal as well as the cross appeal in part, and remitted the matter to the Copyright Board for reconsideration and fixation of royalty payment in terms of Section 31 of the aforesaid Act.
The relief sought for by the petitioners herein in the application for interim orders before the High Court was only for a stay of the order passed by the Copyright Board and number for any direction to pay companypensation at any particular rate.
The said order resulted in overall payment of Rs.660/ per needle hour by way of royalty.
At the same time, since the matter involves a large number of stake holders, it will be in the interest of all companycerned if the appeals are decided early by the Madras High Court.
This Court had on the earlier occasion set aside the earlier fixation of companypensation and the entire matter was at large before the Copyright Board.
The matter was carried to this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.5114, 5178 5180, 5181, 5182 and 5183, all of 2005.
