Copyright Infringement Suit Not Governed by Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses: Delhi HC Upholds Maintainability - 2025-12-08

Digital Footprint Determines Jurisdiction: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea in Zee-Mohalla Tech Copyright Row

In a significant ruling concerning intellectual property rights in the digital age, the High Court of Delhi has affirmed its territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a copyright infringement suit filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited against Mohalla Tech Private Limited. Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the defendant's application seeking the return of the plaint, clarifying that claims of statutory copyright infringement are not tethered to prior contractual dispute resolution clauses.

Understanding the Dispute

The conflict traces back to the digital presence of Mohalla Tech’s platforms, ShareChat and Moj . Zee Entertainment alleged that despite the legal termination of their prior license agreements, these platforms continued to allow users to exploit Zee’s copyrighted repertoire through in-built musical libraries. Zee argued that this unauthorized use constituted continuous infringement of its intellectual property.

The defendant, Mohalla Tech, challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi, relying on "exclusive jurisdiction" clauses contained in the now-expired User Content and Revenue Sharing Agreement and the earlier License Agreement, which pointed to courts in Mumbai.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The debate centered on the interplay between contractual autonomy and the statutory framework of the Copyright Act.

The Defendant's Stance: Mohalla Tech maintained that because their previous agreements explicitly designated Mumbai as the venue for dispute resolution, and because neither party has a registered office in Delhi, the plaintiff could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. They further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove specific targeting of Delhi-based users that would satisfy the criteria under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Plaintiff's Case: Zee Entertainment countered that the present suit was distinct from any contractual breach. It was a standalone claim of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. Because ShareChat and Moj are accessible and interactive within Delhi, and because the infringement is continuous and widespread, a part of the cause of action survives in the capital, justifying the filing in the Delhi High Court.

Court's Reasoning: Infrastructure and Interaction

Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasized that the court must assess jurisdiction based on the plaint's averments and the nature of the claim. Because the dispute pertains to unauthorized exploitation—not a breach of contract—the exclusionary clauses of the prior agreements are inapplicable.

The court noted that digital platforms, by their very nature, interact with users across geographical boundaries. Drawing from precedents like Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders , the court observed that "mere looming presence of a website in a geography and ability of the customers therein to access the website is sufficient" to attract jurisdiction. Since the apps allow users in Delhi to access and use infringing content, the cause of action is deemed to have arisen, at least in part, within Delhi’s territorial limits.

Key Observations

• On the Nature of the Suit: "Perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the plaint makes it evident that the suit has been instituted for seeking relief in respect of the illegal exploitation of the plaintiff‟s repertoire by the defendant... and not in respect of breach of any Agreement."
• On Jurisdictional Limits: "The jurisdiction of the Court does not depend upon the defense taken by the defendant. Rather, the same is premised upon the allegations made in the plaint which decide the forum."
• On Continuous Infringement: "The concept of infringement and passing off is not fixed in time. It is elastic in nature inasmuch as use of a mark is continuous and each and every use constitutes a fresh cause of action."

Implications for Future Litigation

The court’s decision underscores a growing trend in jurisprudence where the interactivity of digital platforms serves as a robust anchor for jurisdiction. By distinguishing statutory copyright infringement from contractual disputes, the Delhi High Court has provided a clear roadmap for companies to seek legal recourse in their preferred venues, provided there is a tangible "cause of action"—in this case, the simple availability and potential for abuse of copyrighted material via their applications. This ensures that platform owners cannot escape liability by citing expired contracts or remote principal offices if their digital activities impact users in the forum state.

The suit will now proceed to the Roster Bench on January 15, 2026, where the substantive issues of copyright infringement will be addressed.