The necessity for substantiated factual averments in pleadings is essential to establish jurisdiction in cases involving copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.

1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 05.04.2019 in C.S.No.645 of 2018, A.No.1486 of 2019, in Application No.6926 of 2018.

2. The appellants were plaintiffs in the said Suit which was filed for the following relief: -
a. To grant a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the first and second respondents herein and their agents etc., from contacting the customers of the appellants for providing products, parts and fittings in any manner infringing the appellant's / plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work in the engineering drawings for its separator and / or any products / parts by substantially reproducing the artistic work by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or dealing with parts based on or derived from the appellant's / plaintiff's copyrighted engineering drawings;
b. for granting judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining, the respondents 1 & 2 from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off their products as and for the appellant's / plaintiff's products by use of the similar name O - SEPARATOR or any other trademark, which is identical or deceptively similar to the appellant's / plaintiff's mark O - SEPA;
c. For a judgment and decree to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the appellant / plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages for committing acts of infringement of copyright and passing off;
d. For a preliminary decree in favour of the appellant / plaintiff to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to render true and faithful accounts of all profits earned by them, using appellant's / plaintiff's drawings and a final decree be passed in favour of the appellants for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the respondents 1 & 2 after they have rendered accounts;
e. For a judgment and decree directing the respondents 1 & 2 to surrender to the appellants for destruction, the name boards, invoices, etc., which bears deceptively similar trade mark / trade name 'O - Separator'.

3. The appellants / plaintiffs filed two applications, namely, O.A.Nos.869 & 870 of 2018, praying for orders of interim injunction. The learned Single Bench by common order, dated 17.09.2018, granted an order of ex parte injunction as prayed for, and ordered notice to the respondents 1 & 2 returnable by 01.10.2018. Subsequently, the orders of interim injunction were extended vide order dated 01.10.2019. Prior to the suit being listed for admission along with interim applications, the appellant / plaintiff filed Application No.6926/2018, under clause 12 of Letters Patent seeking leave to sue the defendants. This application was filed as the first and third defendants were not residing or carrying on business within jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant / plaintiff's submission was that the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Court noted the averments in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the Application No.6926 of 2018, in which the appellant / plaintiff is purported to have set out as to how the part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the commercial division of this Court. The relevant portion of the paragraph 9 as noted by the Commercial division is as follows: -
"9.I submit that the Appellant's products are available for sale on a huge commercial basis in Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. I also submit that the 1st and 2nd respondents are also responsible for the manufacture and distribution of goods all over the country, including in Chenn