Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

Interplay of Cause of Action and Jurisdiction

Facts:The appellant, Mr. Nilesh Girkar, an author and lyricist, was engaged by Respondents 2 to 5, including Tutri Ventures Private Limited and its directors, to write dialogues and lyrics for songs in a film initially titled "SHOOTER." It was agreed that if the appellant's work was used in the film, he would be compensated. However, in 2016, the appellant was informed that the film project was shelved, leading him to cease pursuing his claims.

Years later, the appellant discovered a film titled "OPERATION FRYDAY" streaming on ZEE5, the OTT platform owned by Respondent 1, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited. "OPERATION FRYDAY" was essentially the earlier shelved "SHOOTER," having been renamed but containing the appellant’s dialogues and songs. Though the film credited the appellant for the songs, it did not acknowledge his contribution to the dialogues, nor did the respondents seek his permission or pay any royalty for using his literary work.

The appellant issued multiple notices starting in February 2023, demanding recognition and compensation for his copyright, but the respondents failed to adequately respond or settle the matter amicably. Consequently, the appellant filed a suit in the Commercial Court alleging copyright infringement, seeking permanent injunctions, credits, damages, and costs.

Procedural History:The Commercial Court initially rejected the suit against Respondent 1 (Zee Entertainment) under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for lack of cause of action and returned the plaint against Respondents 2 to 5 under Order VII Rule 10 for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed against this order, challenging the dismissal and return of plaint parts. On a prior occasion, a Division Bench of the High Court had ruled that dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(a) was improper when it should have been a return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and remanded the matter for correct consideration.

Dispute:The core dispute concerned two interlinked issues was whether the Commercial Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit given that the appellant's cause of action partly arose in Delhi, where ZEE5 operates and where the film was accessible.

The Commercial Court held that no cause of action existed against Respondent 1 since there was no direct contractual privity and that the suit was not maintainable there. It also found lack of territorial jurisdiction over Respondents 2 to 5, returning the plaint against them.

Detailed Reasoning:The High Court undertook an extensive analysis of procedural law and copyright provisions to evaluate the correctness of the Commercial Court's order.

The Court recognized that under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, a plaint is returned when a suit is filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, while under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, a plaint is rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action. The Court emphasized that a plaint cannot be rejected partially; it must either be wholly rejected or upheld, citing authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in *Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy* (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407), which clarifies this principle.

The Court noted that the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the plaint against Respondent 1 and returning it against others simultaneously, which is not permissible.

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court relied on Section 20(c) of the CPC, which allows suits to be instituted where a cause of action, wholly or partly, arises. Since the film was streamed on the OTT platform ZEE5 accessible in Delhi, the Court held that at least part of the cause of action did arise within the Court’s territorial limits.

Significantly, the Court detailed the copyright provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly Sections 14, 17, and 51. The author of literary works—here, the dialogues and songs—holds exclusive rights including reproduction, public communication, and adaptation.

Section 51 of the Copyright Act deems infringement to occur when any person, without a license, exercises these exclusive rights or permits a place (such as an OTT platform) to communicate the infringing work to the public for profit.

The Court held that mere lack of contractual privity with Respondent 1 does not extinguish the cause of action for copyright infringement. The OTT platform owner, as the entity streaming the film containing the author’s copyrighted dialogues without authorization, is liable as an infringer under Section 51(a)(ii).

The Court also rejected attempts by Respondent 1 to differentiate their platform from "interactive websites" used in commerce by highlighting technical differences with subscription models and transaction types. It held that such distinctions do not negate the fact that the streaming constituted communication to the public within the meaning of copyright infringement and thus created jurisdiction in the Court where the platform is accessible.

Further, the Court observed that the appellant's grievances against all respondents formed an interconnected "bouquet of grievances" related to copyright infringement. This interconnection precluded splitting the suit by defendant.

Hence, the suit was maintainable against all respondents in the Commercial Court sitting at Saket, Delhi.

The Court relied on these important precedents and legal principles:

- *Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy*, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407 — Partial rejection of plaint not permitted; entire plaint must be accepted or rejected.

- *Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co.*, AIR 1936 Lah 1021 — Early precedent on rejection of plaint.

- *Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd.*, (2018) 11 SCC 780 and *Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd.*, (2019) 7 SCC 158 — Affirming that plaint cannot be rejected segment-wise.

- Banyan Tree judgment — Regarding territorial jurisdiction and "purposeful availment" in online contracts.

- Sections 14, 17, and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 — On copyright ownership, exclusive rights, and definition of infringement.

The Court also carefully noted the procedural impropriety in the rejection/return order and set aside the impugned order.

Decision:The appeal was allowed to the extent that the impugned order of the learned Commercial Court dated March 20, 2025, was quashed and set aside.

The matter was remitted to the learned Commercial Court at Saket for fresh adjudication, with instructions to issue summons to all respondents and consider all pending applications, including granting territorial jurisdiction over the suit as maintainable against all defendants.

The rejection of the suit against Respondent 1 and return of plaint against Respondents 2 to 5 was held to be unsustainable in law.

Case Title: Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and Others

Order Date: September 16, 2025

Case Number: RFA(COMM) 251/2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8281-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi