The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr.

Imagine you run a business in Mumbai. Out of nowhere, you are sued in a court thousands of kilometers away, not because that's where the dispute happened, but because the plaintiff simply has a branch office there. Sounds like an abuse of process, doesn't it? This is precisely the question the Delhi High Court had to confront in a copyright dispute between a performing rights society and its alleged infringer, a case that serves as a powerful reminder that statutory provisions cannot be twisted into tools of harassment.

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS), a body that manages the rights of music creators and publishers, found itself in a jurisdictional tangle with Sanjay Dalia and another party. IPRS had filed a copyright infringement suit in Delhi, but the trial court directed them to refile the plaint in Maharashtra, where the cause of action had actually arisen. Aggrieved by this order, IPRS approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that its registered presence in the capital entitled it to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts under Section 62 of the Copyright Act.

IPRS contended that Section 62 of the Copyright Act was an enabling provision designed to give copyright owners an additional, convenient forum to protect their rights. Because IPRS maintained an office in Delhi, the society argued, Delhi was a perfectly valid place to file the suit, regardless of where the alleged infringement had taken place. The defendants, on the other hand, pushed back against what they viewed as forum-shopping, arguing that the suit had no real connection to Delhi and that forcing them to litigate there would be oppressive and impractical. The core legal friction was simple: does Section 62 grant an absolute right to sue wherever the plaintiff has a presence, or must the suit still have a genuine nexus to the chosen forum?

The Delhi High Court ruled against IPRS, holding that while Section 62 of the Copyright Act does provide an additional forum for copyright owners, it cannot be read in isolation or interpreted mechanically. The court emphasized that any statutory provision conferring jurisdiction must be given a purposive and pragmatic interpretation. Allowing a plaintiff to file suit in any jurisdiction where they merely maintain an office would open the door to harassment and abuse of the legal process. The court ultimately upheld the lower court's direction to IPRS to refile the plaint in Maharashtra, where the cause of action had actually arisen, reinforcing the principle that the location of the plaintiff's office cannot override the fundamental requirement of a genuine cause of action in the chosen territory.

For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, the lesson is clear: do not treat jurisdictional statutes like Section 62 of the Copyright Act or Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act as a blank check to sue wherever it is most convenient for you. Courts are increasingly vigilant against forum-shopping and will insist on a pragmatic, purposive interpretation of the law. Before filing an infringement suit, always evaluate where the cause of action truly arose and file there. Using a distant jurisdiction simply because you have a registered office there risks having your plaint thrown out, wasting time, money, and credibility, while exposing you to accusations of using litigation as a tool of harassment rather than justice.