2004 (2) TMI 652 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to entertain a suit filed by the appellants and one other? Held that - The object and reason for the introduction of sub-section (2) of Section 62 was not to restrict the owners of the copyright to exercise their rights but to remove any impediment from their doing so. Even if the jurisdiction of the Court were restricted in the manner construed by the Division Bench, it is evident not only from the cause title but also from the body of the plaint that the appellant No. 2 carries on business within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The appellant No. 2 is certainly a person instituting the suit . a 'cease and desist' notice in a copyright action cannot, particularly in view of Section 60 of the Act, be termed to be a 'mere' notice. Such a threat may give rise to the right to institute a suit to counter such threat and to ask for relief on the ground that the alleged infringement to which the threat related was not in fact an infringement of any legal right of the person making such threat. As we have seen, the Division Bench disposed of the appeals solely on the issue of jurisdiction. Its conclusion on the issue is insupportable. The impugned decision is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Division Bench for disposal of the appeals filed by the respondents and appellants on merits. Pending the decision of the Division Bench, the order passed by the learned Single Judge which we have quoted earlier will continue. The appeals are accordingly allowed with costs.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a suit against the respondents in the High Court of Delhi, claiming infringement of copyright in the trademark 'Maloxine' and seeking various reliefs. The appellants argued that the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was appropriate based on the infringement of their copyright and their business presence in Delhi. An interim order was initially granted in favor of the appellants, but both parties appealed the decision. The Division Bench allowed the respondents' appeal, stating that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the Division Bench's decision was based solely on the issue of jurisdiction and did not consider the merits of the case.

The Division Bench's decision to direct the return of the plaint was deemed inappropriate as there was no application for rejection or return of the plaint by the respondents. The Division Bench also erred in considering factual statements from the respondents' written statement that contradicted the allegations in the plaint. The Division Bench misinterpreted Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, by restricting the jurisdiction of the District Court. The purpose of Section 62(2) was to widen jurisdiction, not limit it, to facilitate copyright infringement proceedings. The Division Bench's conclusion on jurisdiction was found to be unsupported and erroneous.

The appellants argued that the appellant No. 2's business presence in Delhi and the receipt of a 'cease and desist' notice within Delhi were sufficient to establish the High Court's jurisdiction. The 'cease and desist' notice alleged copyright infringement and invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Division Bench's reliance on previous court decisions regarding jurisdiction was deemed inapplicable to the current case. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's decision, remanding the matter for a proper consideration of the appeals on their merits. The interim order issued by the learned Single Judge was to continue until the Division Bench's decision. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed with costs.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, emphasizing that the provision aims to facilitate copyright infringement proceedings without restricting jurisdiction. The Court overturned the Division Bench's decision on jurisdiction and remanded the case for further consideration on its merits, highlighting the importance of correctly applying legal principles in determining territorial jurisdiction in copyright infringement cases.