The interpretation of 'carries on business' in Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and its relation to the explanation in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are crucial in determining territorial jurisdiction.

( 1 ) AN objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the present suit has been taken by the defendants. In paragraph 25 of the plaint it has been stated that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit by virtue of Section 62 (2) of the copyright Act, 1957 as the plaintiff "carries on business" through its branch office situated at B-317, Som Dutt Chamber-1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi within the territorial limits of this High Court. The objection raised by the defendants is that the expression "carries on business" appearing in Section 62 (2)1 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has to be understood in the manner indicated in the explanation to Section 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'cpc' ). It has been contended on behalf of the defendants that the said explanation clearly stipulates that a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India. If it has a subordinate office and any cause of action arises at the place of the subordinate office, then the corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at the place of such subordinate office also. The contention is that the plaintiff has filed this suit on the basis of the existence of a purported branch office at New Delhi. But Delhi can only be regarded as a place where the plaintiff carries on business if the cause of action has arisen at Delhi. And, according to the defendants, no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Therefore, they say, this court would not have jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a company limited by guarantee and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also registered as a copyright society under section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The registered office of the company is at Mumbai. The plaintiff, as per the statements made in the plaint, is a non-profit making body established for the purposes of monitoring, protecting and enforcing the rights, interests and privileges of its members comprising of authors, composers and publishers of literary and/ or musical works as well as on behalf of the members of other sister societies who are owners of copyrights in their literary and musical works. The defendant No. 1 is the Chief General manager of defendant No. 2 (Cineline Cinemas ). The defendant No. 2, as per the averments in the plaint, are pioneers in cinema exhibition with 33 screens up and running in various locations and 97 screens in the making. It is alleged that the defendants have been indulging in continuous violation of the rights of the plaintiff by communicating to the public / publicly performing, literary and / or musical works from the plaintiff's repertoire without having obtained a licence from the plaintiff to do so. It is alleged that the defendants had been put on adequate notice of the plaintiff's rights but to no avail. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from performing/ communicating to the public literary works and / or musical works / playing of live music or any other means, or by way of mechanical devices at any premises, literary and / or musical works of the plaintiff by way of live performances or mechanical devices such as public address systems/ radio/ T. V sets/ cinema theaters without obtaining a licence from the plaintiff and without paying the requisite licence fee. Damages have also been claimed to the tune of Rs 20,01,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE defendants have raised objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the suit filed by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that the entire cause of action has arisen at Mumbai. Both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 have their principal offices in Mumbai. It was further submitted that the plaintiff is seeking its rights under assignments of musical works b