Title: YASHODA THAKORE versus KUCHIPUDI DANCE CENTRE AND ORS
Decision on: 12.07.23
+ CM(M)-IPD 10/2023 & CM APPL. 27785/2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
Introduction
Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking over-rule of the judgement of trial court, under article 227 of the constitution of India
Facts of the case
A well-known and reputable dancer named Swapnasundari filed CS (Comm) 671/2021 before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commercial Court”) against one of her students named Yashoda Thakore, who had given a dance performance in St. Petersburg, Russia, in the months of January 2012 and 2013. Swapnasundari argued that the aforementioned dance piece was her original work, over which she owned the copyright, and that Ms. Thakore had violated her copyright by performing the dance piece for a profit without her consent or authorization.
The petitioner filed an application with the learned Trial Court pursuant to Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), arguing that the lawsuit was defective for lack of territorial jurisdiction and requesting that the respondents return the lawsuit so that it can be filed with a court that has the authority to hear the case.
The aforementioned application was turned down by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) (“the learned Commercial Court”) in an order dated April 28, 2023. The petitioner has challenged this decision by this current petition, which was filed in accordance with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.
Analysis of the court
A reading of the impugned order dated 28 April 2023, of the learned Commercial Court, reveals that the learned Commercial Court has essentially proceeded on the basis of the principles enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Choubey.
learned the petitioner’s attorney does not contest the decision in Ultra Home Construction relevance to the current case. However, he argues that the decision in Ultra Home Construction4 is per incuriam because it violates the explanation to Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which it omits to mention and which, in his view, must be given a strict interpretation in accordance with a catena of relevant authorities. He also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. After hearing the petitioner, I’m sorry I can’t support his claim.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, the Division Bench of this Court has unequivocally held in Ultra Home Construction that Section 62 of the Copyright Act provides an additional forum for institution of a suit alleging copyright infringement, over and above the forum which, by operation of Section 20 of the CPC, would have jurisdiction in the matter. (The relevant para referred from Ultra Home Construction were para 13 to para 22 and para 52.)
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the non obstante clause, with which Section 62 of the Copyright Act commences, allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit where she or he resides or works for pay, in addition to the venue for institution of the suit as contemplated by Section 20 of the CPC. This is supported by both Indian Performing Rights Society6 and Ultra Home Construction4. The sole restriction on this entitlement is that the lawsuit must be filed in the location where the plaintiff’s primary place of employment is located, not in some other remote location where the plaintiff may also maintain a secondary office. This caveat has no application in the present case, on facts.
Therefore, it is impossible to interpret Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act as a clause that precludes the application of Section 62 of the Copyright Act. When combined with Sections 16 to 20 of the CPC, Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act operates in a separate domain. That area is unique and different from the area covered by Section 62 of the Copyright Act, as stated by the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society and the Division Bench of this Court in Ultra Home Construction. Both cases make it clear that a plaintiff desiring to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement may do so within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction or under Section 62 of the Copyright Act or under Section 16 to 20 of the CPC.
The plea, of petitioner, that Ultra Home Construction is per incuriam is, therefore, completely bereft of merit.
Now that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Solidaire has been brought up, it is clear that the disagreement in that case is fundamentally different from the conflict that emerges in the current case in both contour and complexion. In that instance, the Court was concerned with a scenario in which there were two statutes, each of which was determined to be a special legislation, granting jurisdiction over the same cause of action to two distinct Courts. The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions and Securities) Act, 1992, and the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, were found to be in conflict with one another on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which is a significant finding in the aforementioned decision.
There is undoubtedly no contradiction between Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Sections 16 to 20 of the CPC in light of the Division Bench’s decision in Ultra Home Construction. They complement one another, and neither service displaces the other. Therefore, the petitioner cannot benefit from the ruling in Solidaire.
Petitioner has openly stated that the matter would have been decided by Ultra Home Construction’s ruling had it not been for his claim that it violates Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act. In light of the aforementioned, the learned Commercial Court’s decision to rule as it did cannot be said to have been factually, legally, or jurisdictionally incorrect.
Because of this, the challenged order does not warrant interference within the narrow scope of this Court’s authority granted by Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the petition is denied in part.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Shreyanshu Gupta
click to view the judgement
