MUSIC BROADCAST LIMITED Vs. AXIS BANK & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2016 delivered by a learned single Judge of this court, whereby he has taken the view that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit [CS(OS) 2119/2013], which had been filed by the appellant / plaintiff. Consequently, the learned single Judge has directed the return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for presentation before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which, according to the learned single Judge, alone has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge had, however, continued the interim order passed on 18.11.2013 for a period of four weeks and also noted that the transferee court would be at liberty to consider the matter and pass an order as to whether or not to continue the interim order. This interim order was continued by this Bench and is in operation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the learned single Judge is erroneous. It was, first of all, submitted that the view of the learned single Judge is premised on the assumption that clause 33 of the voluntary licence agreements between the appellant and the respondent No.2, which gave exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, was applicable insofar as the present suit was concerned. This assumption, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is without any basis because the present suit has been filed in respect of the compulsory licences granted on 03.09.2010 by the Registrar of Copyrights at New Delhi pursuant to the order of the Copyright Board dated 25.08.2010. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present suit has been filed, inter alia, being aggrieved by the cancellation notice dated 21.06.2013 issued by the respondent No.2, cancelling the compulsory licences. It is the infraction of the rights flowing from the compulsory licences, which is the subject matter of the present suit. The voluntary licence agreements, which contained the exclusive jurisdiction clause, are not in issue in the present suit. It is, therefore, contended on the part of the appellant that the assumption by the learned single Judge that clause 33 of the voluntary licence agreements would be operative is clearly misconceived. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that another aspect on which the learned single Judge has gone wrong is that he was under the impression that the present suit is based on the same cause of action as civil suit No.565/2011, which has been filed by the appellant against, inter alia, the respondent No.2 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present suit and the suit at Bombay were different and were not on the same cause of action. The Bombay suit pertained to adjustments under the voluntary licence agreements and related to the period prior to the compulsory licences, whereas the present suit was concerned with the compulsory licences and the alleged illegal conduct on the part of the respondent No.2 in cancelling the said compulsory licences by virtue of the impugned notice dated 21.06.2013.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents and, in particular, respondent No.2, supported the decision of the learned single Judge on both counts. It was contended that the compulsory licences were nothing but a continuation of the arrangement under the voluntary licence agreements and, therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction clause would apply to the compulsory licences also. It was also contended that no part of the cause of action, in any event, arose in Delhi, inasmuch as both the appellant and the respondent No.2 have their registered offices in Mumbai, the cancellation notice dated 21.06.2013 was issued by the respondent No.2 at Mumbai and the same was received by the appellant at its office in Mumbai. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The learned counsel also reiterated the view of the learned single Judge that the civil suit No.565/2011, which has been filed by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, clearly indicated that the territorial jurisdiction was that of the High Court at Bombay because, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the cause of action of the present suit and that of the suit at Bombay was the same.