Territorial jurisdiction under Copyright Act Section 62(2) may arise from business presence and a cease-and-desist notice received in Delhi.

Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 enlarges the ordinary territorial rule by providing an additional forum where any plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain. Territorial jurisdiction must be assessed on the plaint averments, not on disputed defence facts. On the plaint, the defendant carried on business in Delhi, had an office in New Delhi, and received the cease-and-desist notice there, which could supply a jurisdictional nexus in a copyright dispute. The Division Bench therefore erred in directing return of the plaint, and the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and whether the Division Bench could direct return of the plaint on the jurisdictional objection in the pending appeals.

Analysis: Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 enlarges the ordinary jurisdictional rule by using the word "include", and therefore provides an additional forum to the plaintiff where any plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain. Jurisdictional objection at the threshold had to be tested on the plaint averments, not on the defence version of facts. The plaint itself stated that one appellant carried on business in Delhi, had an office in New Delhi, and had received the cease and desist notice there. Such a notice in a copyright dispute was not a mere formality but a threat of legal proceedings and, with Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in view, could form part of the basis for approaching the court. The Division Bench therefore erred in treating the plaint as lacking territorial nexus and in ordering return of the plaint in appeals where no such application had been made.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the order returning the plaint was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional ruling of the Division Bench was set aside, the matter was remanded for decision on merits, and the interim arrangement made by the Single Judge was directed to continue pending such disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, jurisdiction is additionally available at the forum where any plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, and a cease and desist notice received there may supply a jurisdictional nexus; such jurisdiction must be assessed on the plaint averments and not on disputed defence facts.

---