M. K. Sharma,j. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 16. 11. 1993 passed by the Copyright Board directing for expunging of Entry No. A. 51185/91 in the Register of Copyright granted in favour of the appellant. The Copyright Board directed expunging of the aforesaid entry of copyright on the ground that the appellant had not in law become the owner of the copyright in the manner contemplated by the provisions of the Copyright Act. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid impugned order was passed by the Copyright Board on the basis of a petition filed by M/s. Gulfarn Exporters of Lucknow, respondent No. I herein, praying for expunging of Entry No. 51185 /91 in the register of Copyright of the artistic work of Two Hukkas registered in the name of the appellant herein. The main grounds urged in the said petition for rectification are that work was not Urdu but Arabic and that the Certificate issued by the Trade Marks Office under Section 45 (1) of the Copyright Act was contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and also that the Registrar of Copyrights did not wait for the statutory 30 days as required under Rule 16 (4) of the Copyright Rules. The appellant filed his written statement and respondent No. 1 filed his rejoinder thereof. The aforesaid case before the Copyright Board was registered as Case No. 8 of 1992. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, it appears that the parties were heard by the Copyright Board and during the course of hearing learned Counsel appearing for the respondent urged an issue to the effect that no assignment of copyright in any work would be valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent and there being no written assignment in the present case in favour of the appellant as required under Section 19 of the Copyright Act the appellant could not have in law become the owner of the copyright in the manner contemplated in the Copyright Act. The Copyright Board was persuaded, as it appears from the tenor of the impugned order by the aforesaid arguments of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and accordingly, by the impugned order the Copyright Board allowed the petition on the short ground that the respondent did not in law become the owner of the copyright in the manner as contemplated in the Copyright Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts of the case and was passed without giving the appellant sufficient opportunity to represent his case properly. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further drawn our attention to the concluding portion of the impugned order and submitted on the basis of para 11 of the impugned order that the ground on the basis of which the impugned entry was directed to be expugned was raised for the first time during the course of arguments and, therefore, it is apparent, from the face of the records of the case, that no proper and sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to produce before the Copyright Board the written assignment of the author of the trade mark for its perusal and appreciation thereof. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further drawn our attention to the statements and the grounds urged in the application filed by respondent No. 1 before the Copyright Board to show that no such ground was taken by respondent No. 1 in the said petition. According to the learned Counsel in the absence of any such pleadings to the effect that there was no assignment of the trade mark at all in favour of the appellant there was no scope of the appellant to place the written assignment before the Copyright Board and accordingly, the impugned order directing for expunging of the entry is arbitrary and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has submitted before us that no assignment deed was ever produced by the appellant before the Copyright Board because there was no assignment deed at all. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has further submitted that the appellant has fraudulently fabricated an assignment deed, a copy of which has been annexed to the appeal. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has further submitted that the appellant has fraudulently fabricated an assignment deed, a copy of which has been annexed to the appeal. ( 6 ) WE have perused the contents of the petition filed by respondent No. I before the Copyright Board and from the contents thereof we do not find that respondent No. 1 has ever taken up any ground therein to the effect that there was no assignment of the copyright in favour of the appellant. Besides paragraph 11 of the impugned order specifically stated that the ground that there was no written assignment in favour of the appellant by the author Shri Nadeemul Hasan had been taken for the first time in the course of arguments. In view of the aforesaid position, in our opinion, there was no scope and opportunity for the appellant to produce before the Copyright Board the written assignment, if any, executed in his favour by the author or his representative. The appellant alongwith the appeal has annexed a copy of the written assignment in his favour executed by one Shri Nadeem. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has challenged before us the legality and validity of the same. We feel that unless and until the said written assignment stated to beexecuted in favour of the appellant by the author is produced before the Copyright Board and examined by it, it would not be proper on our part to enter into and examine the question of legality and validity of the same. The appellant having not been granted such an opportunity by the Copyright Board to produce the same before taking an adverse view, we feel that there is apparent violation of the principles of natural justice. It is afundamental rule of law that no decision should be taken affecting the rights of any person without first giving him an opportunity of putting forward his case. Such an opportunity having not been granted to the appellant by the Copyright Board before giving its decision on the issue, we cannot but hold that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the appellant was denied an opportunity of fair hearing. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 18. 11. Such an opportunity having not been granted to the appellant by the Copyright Board before giving its decision on the issue, we cannot but hold that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the appellant was denied an opportunity of fair hearing. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 18. 11. 1993 passed by the Copyright Board and remit the case back to the Board for fresh adjudication and disposal of the same after giving a reasonable opportunity to all the parties herein to adduce any further evidence or record that the parties wish to produce in support of their respective cases. With the aforesaid directions and observations the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above but without costs.