Based on the provided legal document, the main legal point established is that the jurisdiction to try a suit related to violation of a contractual agreement or infringement of copyright is determined by the nature of the claim, specifically whether it falls under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court emphasized that if the suit is primarily based on a violation of a contractual agreement, such as breach of terms or breach of an exclusive license, then the appropriate forum is the Munsiff's Court (or equivalent lower court) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Conversely, if the suit involves infringement of copyright rights, such as unauthorized reproduction or violation of exclusive rights conferred by copyright, then the jurisdiction lies with the District Court, as mandated by the Copyright Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The judgment clarifies that the distinction hinges on whether the plaintiff's claim is based on a breach of contract (which would be within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court) or on the infringement of copyright rights (which would be within the jurisdiction of the District Court). In this case, since the suit was found to be based on breach of a contractual agreement rather than copyright infringement, the court set aside the lower court's order and directed the plaint to be presented in the proper court with jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the key legal principle is that the nature of the claim—contractual breach versus copyright infringement—determines the appropriate court's jurisdiction.