ARTE INDIANA Vs. P MITTULAUL LALAH AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have moved this Court for leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) CLAUSE 14 reads as under :-

(3.) ON the other hand on behalf of the defendant No. 1 it is contended that a close reading of Clause 14 would indicate that at least one of the causes of action must have arisen within the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court. It is pointed out that the Copyright Act is a special Act. The right to sue has been conferred by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 62 of the Copyright Act. This right to sue therefore is not in the ordinary course of the Original Jurisdiction of this Court but conferred by statute. It is further pointed out that this was not in issue in both the judgments cited on behalf of the plaintiffs which have been referred to hereinabove. On behalf of the defendant No. 2 it is contended that the right which falls under the Copyright Act is only within the territorial jurisdiction of India. The defendant No. 2 carries on business outside India. Therefore, the defendant No. 2 cannot be sued in India. For that purpose, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of justice, Chancery Division in the case of (Def Lepp Music and ors. v. Stuart-Brown and ors.) (1986) R. P. C. 273. That was the case under the English Copyright Act wherein it was held that as the territorial jurisdiction of the act was conferred to the United Kingdom, it was only acts done in the United Kingdom which would constitute infringement either direct or indirect of such right and consequently any infringement outside United Kingdom would not give a Court in England jurisdiction. With the above background, the matter can now be disposed of.