Author: Kaushiki Dubey

Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Date of the Judgement: 8 December 2025 (Reserved on 16 October 2025)

Case Type: Commercial Civil Suit-Copyright Infringement (Application for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC)

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Relevant Provisions: 

• Section 51, Copyright Act, 1957
• Section 62(2), Copyright Act, 1957
• Section 20(c), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure,1908
• Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000

Introduction

The present case concerns the issue of territorial jurisdiction in online copyright infringement disputes, particularly in the context of digital platforms hosting user-generated content.The Delhi High Court was called upon to determine whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain a copyright infringement suit where the defendant’s platforms were accessible in Delhi, despite the existence of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in previously terminated agreements between the parties. The judgement assumes significance in the evolving jurisprudence on intermediary liability, digital copyright enforcement and the application of Section 20(c) CPC to internet-based causes of action.

Brief Facts

1. The plaintiff, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL), is a publicly listed company engaged in the media and entertainment business and claims ownership over a vast repertoire of copyrighted works, including films, audio-visual songs, sound recordings and underlying literary and musical works. 
2. The defendant, Mohalla Tech Private Limited, operates two digital platforms- ShareChat and Moj- which allow users to create and share short-form video content using music available through an in-built music library.
3. The relationship between the parties was previously governed by two agreements:

• A License Agreement dated 8 September 2020 (with subsequent addenda),and
• a User Content and Revenue Sharing Agreement (UCRS) dated 10 February 2023.

4. Under these agreements, the defendant was authorized to host and make available plaintiff’s licensed content on its platforms. Both agreements contained exclusive jurisdiction clauses vesting jurisdiction in courts at Mumbai.
5. The License Agreement expired on 14 July 2023, and the UCRS Agreement was mutually terminated with effect from 1 August 2023.
6. Prior to the expiry of the agreements, the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to confirm removal of its copyrighted content from the platforms upon termination of the license.
7. In or around August 2023, during a routine review, the plaintiff discovered that its copyrighted works continued to be available on the defendant’s platforms through the in-built music libraries, despite the absence of any valid license.
8. The plaintiff alleged that thousands of instances of infringement were found, where users were allowed to select and incorporate Zee’s copyrighted sound recordings while creating videos on ShareChat and Moj.
9. According to the plaintiff, such continued availability and use of its repertoire amounted to unauthorised exploitation and infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act,1957.
10. The plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist legal notice dated 23 August 2023 to the defendant, demanding immediate stoppage of the alleged infringing activities.
11. The defendant,in its reply, denied liability, claimed protection as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000, and asserted that all licensed content had already been removed from its platforms.
12. Being dissatisfied with the defendant’s response and alleging continued infringement accessible to users in Delhi, the plaintiff instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs.
13. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Issue Involved 

1. Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff was essentially contractual in nature and therefore governed by the exclusive jurisdiction clauses vesting jurisdiction in Mumbai courts.
2. Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20(c) of the CPC read with Section 51 of the Copyright Act,1957.
3. Whether mere accessibility of the defendant’s digital platforms in Delhi was sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction in a copyright infringement action.

Petitioner’s Argument

The defendants argued that the dispute was inextricably linked to the contractual arrangements between the parties. It was submitted that the alleged infringement arose out of or in connection with the UCRS Agreement and the License Agreement, both of which contained exclusive jurisdiction clauses conferring jurisdiction on courts in Mumbai. Even though the agreements had expired, the jurisdiction clauses, according to the defendant, survived termination.

The defendant further contended that neither party had its registered office in Delhi, and that under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, jurisdiction would lie in Mumbai where plaintiff carried on business. It was also argued that mere accessibility of an interactive website in Delhi was insufficient to attract jurisdiction unless purposeful targeting of Delhi users was specifically pleaded and proved.

Respondent’s Argument

The plaintiff countered that the suit was not based on breach of contract but was a statutory action for copyright infringement. Since the cause of action arose after the expiry of both agreements, the jurisdiction clauses contained therein were irrelevant.

It was further argued that the defendant was carrying on business in Delhi through its platforms, which were accessible to users in Delhi who could view, upload and create infringing content. Relying on Section 20(c) CPC, the plaintiff submitted that copyright infringement gives rise to a continuing cause of action at every place where infringement occurs, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.

Judgement

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and held that it possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court concluded that the plaintiff disclosed a clear cause of action for copyright infringement and was not barred by law on the ground of jurisdiction.

Legal Reasoning & Personal Commentary

The Court”s reasoning rests on a clear doctrinal distinction between contractual disputes and statutory infringement actions. Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasized that jurisdiction must be determined solely on the basis of the averments in the plaint. Since the plaintiff had not alleged breach of contract but asserted statutory rights under the Copyright Act, the jurisdiction clauses contained in the expired agreements could not govern the present dispute.

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed the settled principle that the copyright infringement is a continuing wrong, and each act of infringement gives rise to a fresh cause of action. By allowing users in Delhi to access and exploit the copyrighted works through its platforms, the defendant was held to be carrying a business within Delhi for the purpose of Section 20(c) CPC.

From an analytical perspective, this judgement is significant in strengthening the position of copyright owners in the digital ecosystem. The Court adopts a pragmatic approach by recognizing the digital platforms, by their very nature, transcend physical boundaries. Requiring plaintiffs to sue only at the place of the defendant’s registered office would impose an unreasonable burden and undermine effective enforcement and intellectual property rights.

At the same time, the decision carefully balances intermediary liability concerns by confining its findings to the jurisdictional stage, without adjudicating on the merits of infringement or safe harbour defenses. Overall, the judgment reinforces access to justice in online copyright disputes and aligns Indian jurisprudence with the realities of platform-based digital infringement.