Delhi High Court Dismisses Mohalla Tech Plea Seeking Return Of Zee Entertainment Copyright Infringement Suit Against ShareChat And Moj
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has refused to return a copyright infringement suit filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited against Mohalla Tech Private Limited, which operates the ShareChat and Moj platforms, holding that the Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Bench has dismissed Mohalla Tech’s application seeking return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction based on prior licensing arrangements and a jurisdiction clause in favour of courts in Mumbai. The suit alleges unauthorised communication and exploitation of Zee’s copyrighted content through the platforms’ music libraries and user-generated videos accessible in Delhi, and will now proceed before the Delhi High Court on the merits of the alleged infringement and related reliefs.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, a public listed media and entertainment company, claims ownership of a large repertoire of copyrighted sound recordings, audio-visual songs and underlying literary and musical works in multiple languages, with exclusive rights to exhibit, distribute and exploit these works. Mohalla Tech Private Limited operates the social media platforms “ShareChat” and “Moj”, with in-built music libraries enabling users to select music while creating short videos.
The parties had earlier executed a License Agreement (2020, with addenda) and a User Content and Revenue Sharing Agreement (UCRS) (effective 1 November 2022). The License Agreement expired on 14 July 2023 and the UCRS was mutually terminated with effect from 1 August 2023. Emails in June 2023 recorded Zee’s request to remove all its content post-expiry, which Mohalla Tech acknowledged. During an August 2023 review, Zee allegedly found thousands of instances of its repertoire still being available and used through the in-built libraries on both platforms. Zee issued a legal notice on 23 August 2023; Mohalla Tech replied on 1 September 2023, denying infringement and claiming intermediary status under the IT Act.
Mohalla Tech then filed the present application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, seeking return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi, relying on Mumbai-exclusive jurisdiction clauses and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act.
The Court recorded that “the suit has been instituted for seeking relief in respect of the illegal exploitation of the plaintiff’s repertoire by the defendant on its platforms, and not in respect of breach of any Agreement.” It noted that “the subject matter of the present suit, which is copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s works, does not arise out of or in connection with the UCRS Agreement or the License Agreement.” Accordingly, “the terms of the UCRS Agreement and the License Agreement relating to jurisdiction, will not govern the present dispute.”
Referring to Halsbury’s, the Court stated that “the jurisdiction of a court does not depend upon the defence taken by a defendant and it is the allegations made in the plaint which decide the forum.” It reiterated that in an Order VII Rule 10 CPC application, “the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint,” and that objection to territorial jurisdiction “is by way of a demurrer” requiring all plaint averments to be assumed correct.
The Court noted Zee’s pleadings that the defendant “is carrying on its business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court through its platforms and is targeting the customers/users in Delhi,” and that “any person in Delhi can access the defendant’s platforms/websites” and upload or view content. On “carries on business”, it quoted that “wherever there is business activity, be it the principal place or branch or branches, the party is said to carry on business in all such places.”
On infringement, the Court cited Section 51 and noted that Zee alleged the defendant, “without any permission/license or authorization… is using/broadcasting/exploiting the plaintiff’s works by allowing the users on the platforms to illegally exploit the plaintiff’s sound recordings and underlying works.” It observed that, on a prima facie reading, “the ingredients of Section 51 of the Copyright Act are attracted in the present case.”
Considering accessibility of the platforms, the Court found that “the defendant’s platforms and websites are accessible all over India, including, in Delhi,” and that “defendant’s alleged exploitation of the plaintiff’s contents in Delhi, without any license… would be enough to show that this Court has the jurisdiction.” It stated that in copyright infringement, “cause of action arises at each and every place where there is copyright infringement,” and that Section 20(c) CPC “accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” Ultimately, the Court held that “part of the cause of action for the reliefs, as claimed in the present suit, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.”
The Court concluded that “reading of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint clearly discloses that part of the cause of action for the reliefs, as claimed in the present suit, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.” It therefore held that “the present suit is maintainable, and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes as raised in the present suit.”
Consequently, the Court found “no merit… in the present application, and the same is dismissed.” The suit was directed to proceed, with the Court ordering that it be “list[ed] before the Roster Bench on 15th January, 2026.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Harsh Prakash, Ms. Ridhie Bajaj, Ms. Sarah Haque, Mr. Christopher Thomas, Advocates.
For the Defendant: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa and Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocates along with Mr. Sandeep, Ms. Kanak Malik, Mr. Tejasvi Mahajan and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates.
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Mohalla Tech Private Limited.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11002
Case Number: CS(COMM) 745/2023 & I.A. 7189/2024.
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna.
