Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Indian Performing Rights Society LTD vs Sanjay Dalia

   Supreme Court of India 01 Jul 2015 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where a plaintiff (including corporations) has its principal office or carries on main business at a particular location AND the cause of action wholly or in part arises at that same location, the plaintiff must file suit at that location and cannot file suit at a distant subordinate office location merely because it carries on some business there through a branch office. The provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provide additional forums for filing suits where plaintiff resides or carries on business, but these provisions do not permit suit filing at locations where cause of action has not arisen. The 'notwithstanding' clauses in these sections modify, but do not entirely eliminate, the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When plaintiff has a choice of forum where cause of action has arisen, that choice cannot be circumvented by invoking distant branch office presence. The interpretation must balance plaintiff's convenience (original legislative intent) with prevention of harassment to defendants (counter mischief), adopting the construction that suppresses the mischief and prevents counter-mischief.

   On this section: Section 62 confers additional forum for copyright infringement suits at place where plaintiff resides or carries on business. However, this provision does not oust the requirement that cause of action must wholly or partly arise at that location if plaintiff's principal office is located elsewhere. The 'notwithstanding' clause modifies but does not eliminate Section 20 CPC requirements. Court must balance convenience of plaintiff (original legislative intent) with prevention of harassment to defendants (counter mischief).

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Advance Magazine Publishers INC vs Just Lifestyle Pvt. LTD

   Supreme Court of India 01 Jul 2015 Binding (SC) - Authoritative precedent for all Indian courts Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a plaintiff resides or carries on business at a place where the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen, or where the plaintiff or any of them ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, the suit can be filed at such place under Sections 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, where the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arise at the same location, the plaintiff cannot invoke Sections 62(2) or 134(2) to file suit at a different place, including distant branch offices where no cause of action has arisen. The non-obstante clause in these provisions does not oust the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure but merely provides an additional forum. The interpretation must be subject to the restriction that if cause of action has arisen wholly or in part at the plaintiff's principal place of business, suit must be filed at that place and not at subordinate offices at far-flung locations. This interpretation prevents abuse of the provisions and counter-mischief to defendants while still ensuring the remedy intended for rights-holders - avoiding deterrence due to distance from courts.

   On this section: Section 62(2) provides district court has jurisdiction within local limits where person instituting suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Court held this is an additional forum, not absolute forum, and must be read subject to Section 20 CPC when cause of action arises at principal place of business.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.