jurisdication

vinoth (Querist) 06 March 2008 This query is : Resolved
A PERSON TAKEN A AGENT FROM A COMPANY AND PAY SECURITY DEPOSIT NOW THE COMPANY TERMINATED HIS AGENCIES..NOW REFUSE 2 RETURN DEPOSIT MONEY..AGENT IS IN A PLACE AND COMPANY BRANCH IN B PLACE.. AGREMENT WAS MADE IN B PLACE..BUT THERE IS A AGREMENT THAT ANY DISPUT COME MEANS PERSON CAN ONLY SUE IN CHENNAI...WHETHER ANY PROVISION 2 FILE CASE IN A PLACE

Follow Query

Report Abuse

veenzar (Expert) 07 March 2008
This is permissible in law if Chennai had any pat of cause of action arising within its jurisdiction.

Read this judgment which will give you a clear idea on ousting of jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : SECTION 55 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

IA No. 7219/2005 IN CS (OS) No. 1194 of 2005

Reserved On : 18.10.2005

Date of decision : 21.10.2005

M/S. NARIMAN FILMS PLAINTIFF

Through : Mr. Pravin Anand

with Nikhil Krishamurthy,

Advocates.

VERSUS

DILIP R. MEHTA & ANR. . DEFENDANTS

Through : Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Advocate.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringement of the copyright under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ) and for damages, accounts, delivery-up, etc.

2) The plaintiff and its predecessors are stated to be engaged in the business of film production and are producers inter alia of the film titled 'DON'. The plaintiff claims to be the author and owner of the copyright in the cinematographic film, sound recordings and the tracks. On 30.09.1975, a standard form contract was signed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is stated to have had a monopoly at the relevant stage of time in the business and had apparently entered into similar standard contracts with different parties.

3) The plaintiff states that rights were given under the agreement by the plaintiff to the defendants for a period of 25 years from expiry of the date of the contract, which was initially for a period of 4 years. The period is stated to have expired in September, 2004 and despite that the defendant is alleged to have continued to utilise the rights conferred under the agreement beyond the terms of the agreement. The further allegation is that certain rights not conferred under the agreement or which could not even be envisaged at the time of entering into the agreement are also being enjoyed by the defendant infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.

4)The defendants have contested the suit on merits including on the issue of the period of the agreement. However, insofar as the present application is concerned, the same has been filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Code' ). The said rule is as under :-

11. Rejection of plaint. Â- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

5) The aforesaid plea is based on a forum selection clause contained in the agreement between the parties being clause 19, which is as under :-

19. This Agreement (which shall operate throughout the world) is accepted in Calcutta and all matters, claims and disputes arising in respect of the terms and conditions thereof shall be settled and paid by the parties in Calcutta and any legal proceedings in respect of any matters, claims or disputes shall be instituted in the High Court of Calcutta in West Bengal which shall be the Court of Jurisdiction.

(Emphasis supplied)

6) It is the submission of the defendants / applicants that it is only the Calcutta High Court which would have territorial jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the parties. This plea is based on the fact that parties