Section 62 of the Copyright Act provides an additional forum for copyright infringement suits, enabling the plaintiff to file a suit where they reside or work for gain, in addition to the venue under Section 20 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Swapnasundari, a dancer of renown and repute, instituted CS (Comm) 671/2021, before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) ("the learned Commercial Court", hereinafter) against Yashoda Thakore, one of her students, who had performed a dance item in St. Petersburg, Russia, during the months of January 2012 and 2013. It was Swapnasundari's contention that the said dance item was her creation, over which she held copyright and that, therefore, in performing the dance item, for commercial purpose, without her leave and license, Ms. Thakore had infringed the copyright held by her.

2. The Kuchipudi Dance Centre, founded and run by Swapnasundari from her residence in New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110023, and Swapnasundari herself, were Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the suit, with Yashoda Thakore and YouTube LLC being impleaded as Defendants 1 and 2. The address provided for the Kuchipudi Dance Centre and for Swapnasundari was the same, i.e. Bungalow No. 33, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110023. Yashoda Thakore, admittedly, resides in Hyderabad.

3. Yashoda Thakore and Swapnasundari shall be referred to, hereinafter, by their respective status before this Court, as the petitioner and Respondent 2 respectively.

4. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), submitting that the suit was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction and, therefore, praying for return of the suit to the respondents for presentation before a court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

5. The said application stands rejected by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) ("the learned Commercial Court") vide order dated 28 April 2023, which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India.

6. Para 30 in the suit, whereby the institution of the suit before the learned Commercial Court in Delhi was sought to be justified, read thus:

"30. The Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the Plaintiff resides in and/or carries on her business from New Delhi. Further, the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi as infringing videos are accessible from New Delhi. By virtue, thereof, Section 62(2)<sup>1[62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter.--

(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a "district court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain]</sup>

of the Copyright Act, 1957, this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit."

7. The petitioner's contention, per contra - which has been espoused by Mr. Prasanna, learned Counsel, before me, as well - was that Section 62 of the Copyright Act could not apply in view of Section 6<sup>2[6. Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.-The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has be</sup>