Specific averments in the plaint regarding the plaintiffs' business presence in a particular jurisdiction are sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act.

JUDGMENT :

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

This order shall govern the disposal of is No. 5186/2001 filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 11(b)(c) CPC seeking return of the plaint for being presented in the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction.

2. The plaintiffs are companies incorporated in USA and carrying on business of film production having copy rights in the films produced by them. They adopt a definite distribution strategy to release the film after completion in different stages. Generally the first stage entails release of the film in theatres and/or cinema halls. It is only after the film has run its course in the theaters and cinema halls that the film is released in other formats such as video, cable and satellite TV. Defendant is alleged to be a cable TV operator providing cable TV services almost all over India through its associates/subsidiary companies, agents, franchises and distributors. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their investigation has revealed a truly alarming situation wherein many new films of the plaintiff are being shown clandestinely all over India on cable network without authority whatsoever by procuring pirated copies. In para 10 of the plaint the plaintiff has given details of some of their films which have been shown in the defendant's network. It is alleged that unauthorised duplication and exhibition of cinematograph on the defendant's cable network is causing irreparable harm to the plaintiffs business. Even a single unauthorized release of a film on any one of the Defendant's networks is capable of causing irreparable injury and damage to the plaintiff. The combined claims of distribution network controlled by the defendant is one of the largest in Calcutta. One single telecast by the defendant and its operator is capable of reaching several lakhs of homes simultaneously. The potential for damage is immeasurable and irreparable because unauthorized exhibition of the films by the cable operators reduces the number of viewers in cinema halls and theaters. Defendant serve 75% cable market share in Calcutta providing cable signals to 216 franchisees, covering more than 2200 cable operators. plaintiff contend that there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by one single such invasion and in any case compensation in money would not afford appropriate relief. In para 30 of the plaint it is pleaded that films produced by the plaintiff are exhibited in theaters around Delhi on regular basis. Besides many plaintiffs also have offices in Delhi, while others have appointed distributors. It is pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 carries on business in Delhi through its local office at Plaza Theatre Building, Con-naught Circus, New Delhi, thereby conferring jurisdiction on Delhi Courts. On these allegations, the plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from communicating to the public either by means of cable, wire or by wireless diffusion or, telecasting, broadcasting on their cable network or otherwise any cinematograph film the copyright in which vests with the plaintiffs. Other ancillary reliefs have also been claimed.

3. After service of summons, the defendant had earlier filed an application IA. No. 7165/2000 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for rejection of plaint. But the said is was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application under Order 7, CPC. The defendant has now filed IA. 5186/2001 praying therein that plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court having territorial jurisdiction. It is contended that none of the plaintiffs reside or carry on business within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The defendant admittedly carries on business in Calcutta and not in Delhi. Therefore, Delhi courts would not have jurisdiction to entertain suit Other prayers made in this application were not pressed at the time of arguments.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records