2008 (11) TMI 658 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction for filing a suit under the Copyright Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act in conjunction with Section 20 of the CPC.
3. The relevance of the cause of action in determining the appropriate forum for litigation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction for Filing a Suit under the Copyright Act
The appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge directing the return of the Plaint for presentation before the proper Court. The Plaintiff, a Society registered u/s 33 of the Copyright Rules, 1958, and also a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act, 1950, has its Registered Office in Mumbai and an office in Delhi. The Defendants own Cinema Halls in Maharashtra and Mumbai, and it is conceded that no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The Plaintiff contends that u/s 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it can institute a suit wherever it resides or carries on business, emphasizing its office in Delhi.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act in Conjunction with Section 20 of the CPC
The Court analyzed Section 62 of the Copyright Act, which provides an additional forum for the Plaintiff to file a suit at the place of its residence, thereby avoiding the inconvenience of litigating at the Defendant's location. The Court referred to the principle laid down in Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Allergan Inc., which interprets Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act as providing an additional forum without overriding Section 20 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the cause of action must be considered, and the Plaintiff should file the suit at the place where it has its principal or subordinate place of business if the cause of action has arisen there.

Issue 3: The Relevance of the Cause of Action in Determining the Appropriate Forum for Litigation
The Court highlighted that Section 20 of the CPC requires a suit to be instituted where the Defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises. The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Patel Roadways Limited vs. Prasad Trading Company and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India were cited to support the principle that litigation should not be used as a device of harassment. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff must file the suit at the place where the cause of action has arisen and where it has its principal or subordinate office. The learned Single Judge's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the cause of action is integral to determining the appropriate forum for litigation.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the Plaintiff must file the suit at the place where the cause of action has arisen and where it has its principal or subordinate office, thereby ensuring that litigation is not used as a tool for harassment. The appeal was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed without any order as to costs.