In the matter of Bennett Coleman and Company Limited vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors., decided on 22 May 2026 by the Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 560/2026, before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, the Court dealt with a commercial intellectual property and confidentiality dispute concerning the programme “News Ki Pathshala”. The plaintiff alleged breach of confidentiality, misuse of proprietary information, and infringement of trademark and copyright by former employees and associated parties. The defendants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court on the basis of an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring Mumbai courts and argued that no confidential material remained in their possession. The Court noted rival submissions on maintainability and jurisdiction, particularly the plaintiff’s reliance on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act for invoking Delhi jurisdiction. Considering the objections raised, the Court directed defendant no.6 to preserve and deposit cloned programme-related data in a sealed cover and permitted filing of replies on jurisdictional objections, which would be considered as a preliminary issue. The matter has been listed for further proceedings. Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:______.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#DelhiHighCourt, #BennettColeman, #NewsKiPathshala, #TrademarkDispute, #CopyrightInfringement, #ConfidentialInformation, #CommercialSuit, #IPRNews, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #TradeMarksAct, #CopyrightAct, #JurisdictionChallenge, #MediaLaw, #EmploymentDispute, #LegalNewsIndia, #JusticeTusharRaoGedela, #CorporateLitigation, #IPLitigation, #DelhiHC, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
====
Bennett Coleman vs Arjun Kumar: Delhi High Court Examines Copyright, Confidentiality and Territorial Jurisdiction in Media Industry Dispute
Introduction
The decision delivered by the Delhi High Court in Bennett Coleman and Company Limited vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors. on 22 May 2026 is an important development in the field of intellectual property law, employment-related confidentiality obligations, and jurisdictional disputes in commercial litigation. The matter arose from allegations made by Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, one of India’s leading media companies, against certain former employees and associated parties in relation to the programme “News Ki Pathshala”. The plaintiff alleged misuse of confidential information, copyright infringement, trademark-related violations, and unauthorized use of proprietary media content after the defendants ceased association with the organization.
The case is significant because it reflects the growing legal conflicts emerging in the digital media and broadcasting industry where editorial formats, research material, creative structures, and confidential production processes are increasingly being treated as valuable intellectual property assets. The Court was also required to examine whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction despite the existence of a contractual clause allegedly conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon Mumbai courts.
The order was passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while dealing primarily with an application seeking interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with various procedural applications filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the CPC.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Delhi High Court alleging that the defendants were involved in activities detrimental to the plaintiff’s proprietary rights connected with the programme “News Ki Pathshala”. According to the plaintiff, the programme involved journalistic research, editorial scripting, visual presentation, and graphic integration which constituted original artistic and literary work protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendants, who were either employees or consultants associated with the plaintiff, had access to confidential and proprietary information during the course of their engagement.
The suit was filed as CS(COMM) 560/2026 before the Delhi High Court. Along with the suit, several interlocutory applications were moved seeking permission to place additional documents on record, exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, exemption from filing typed copies of certain documents, permission to file video materials in electronic form, and interim injunction relief against the defendants.
The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation by relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, observing that the matter involved urgent interim relief. The Court also allowed procedural exemptions and permitted filing of electronic evidence and redacted consultancy agreements.
The principal controversy emerged during hearing of the injunction application when defendant no.6 challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Senior counsel appearing for defendant no.6 argued that Clause 17 of the Consultancy Agreement specifically vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts at Mumbai and therefore the Delhi High Court could not entertain the proceedings against that defendant. The defendants further contended that the consultancy relationship was on a principal-to-principal basis and not an employment relationship.
Dispute Before the Court
The dispute before the Court essentially revolved around three major issues. The first issue related to territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. The second concerned allegations relating to misuse of confidential information and intellectual property. The third involved preservation and control over electronic data and access credentials connected with the programme.
Defendant no.6 argued that the suit was barred because the Consultancy Agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring Mumbai courts. Reliance was placed upon several Supreme Court decisions including Dabur India Limited vs. K.R. Industries, (2008) 10 SCC 595, Paragon Rubber Industries vs. Pragathi Rubber Mills, (2014) 14 SCC 762, and Asma Lateef vs. Shabbir Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 42. According to the defendants, once parties had contractually chosen a forum, the Delhi High Court could not assume jurisdiction merely because trademark or copyright claims had also been added.
The defendants also disputed the allegation of possession of confidential information. Defendant no.6 stated before the Court that no confidential information belonging to the plaintiff was retained and that no device belonging to the plaintiff was in possession of the defendant. However, without prejudice to legal objections, defendant no.6 agreed to clone and preserve all information related to “News Ki Pathshala”, including emails available on the personal laptop, and deposit the same before the Court in a sealed cover.
Similarly, defendant nos.1 to 5 contended that no direction could legally be issued compelling them to rejoin employment with the plaintiff. They further argued that the plaintiff itself had admitted in the plaint that laptops and devices had been abandoned at workstations and therefore the allegation that defendants retained such devices was factually incorrect. Nevertheless, they undertook before the Court that passwords and access credentials available with them during employment would be shared with the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the suit was a composite intellectual property action involving trademark infringement, copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, and unauthorized sharing of proprietary information. The plaintiff specifically invoked Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to contend that Delhi courts possessed jurisdiction. The plaintiff further emphasized that the programme content constituted “original artistic work” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and had been created during the course of employment for the benefit of the plaintiff organization.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela adopted a cautious and balanced approach while dealing with the competing claims. Instead of immediately deciding the jurisdictional objection, the Court recognized that the issue required detailed consideration because it involved interplay between contractual jurisdiction clauses and special jurisdiction provisions under intellectual property statutes.
The Court took note of the defendants’ reliance upon Dabur India Limited vs. K.R. Industries, (2008) 10 SCC 595. In that case, the Supreme Court had examined whether a composite suit involving trademark and copyright claims could override statutory jurisdictional limitations. The decision emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be artificially created merely by combining multiple causes of action. Similarly, the defendants relied upon Paragon Rubber Industries vs. Pragathi Rubber Mills, (2014) 14 SCC 762, where the Supreme Court discussed principles governing maintainability of composite intellectual property suits. Reliance was also placed upon Asma Lateef vs. Shabbir Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 42, concerning enforcement of jurisdiction clauses and procedural maintainability.
At the same time, the Court also considered the plaintiff’s reliance on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. These provisions grant plaintiffs in intellectual property matters the right to institute proceedings where they reside or carry on business, thereby enlarging ordinary jurisdictional principles. The plaintiff argued that because copyright and trademark issues formed part of the suit, Delhi courts were competent to hear the matter.
The Court observed that since the jurisdictional objection was based upon the Consultancy Agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.6, the matter required detailed adjudication after proper pleadings. Accordingly, the Court permitted defendant no.6 to file an appropriate application raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and directed that the same would be treated and decided as a preliminary issue.
An important aspect of the order was the Court’s emphasis on preservation of electronic evidence. The Court directed that the relevant programme-related data be cloned and deposited in a sealed cover within two days. This reflects increasing judicial awareness regarding digital evidence preservation in intellectual property and media disputes. The Court balanced interests of both parties by ensuring preservation of data without immediately granting unrestricted access to the plaintiff pending adjudication of jurisdictional objections.
The Court also recognized the commercial sensitivity of confidential information and passwords connected with media operations. The undertakings recorded from the defendants regarding passwords and absence of confidential information played an important role in shaping interim directions. The order demonstrates how Indian courts increasingly encourage preservation, disclosure, and procedural cooperation in technology-related disputes without immediately prejudging substantive rights.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court did not finally determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction or merits of copyright and confidentiality claims at this stage. However, the Court issued several interim procedural directions. Defendant no.6 was directed to clone and deposit all programme-related information and emails in a sealed pen drive before the Court. Defendant nos.1 to 5 undertook to provide passwords and clarified that no confidential information remained with them. The Court permitted filing of replies and rejoinders and directed that the jurisdictional objection would be considered as a preliminary issue in subsequent proceedings. The matter was thereafter listed before the Joint Registrar and later before the Court for further hearing.
Point of Law Settled
The order reiterates that in intellectual property and confidentiality disputes involving employment or consultancy arrangements, courts may prioritize preservation of electronic evidence even before finally deciding jurisdictional objections. The decision also highlights that contractual exclusive jurisdiction clauses can come into conflict with special jurisdiction provisions under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, requiring detailed judicial examination rather than summary rejection of proceedings.
The case further underlines that creative media formats, editorial scripting, graphic integration, and research material may potentially qualify for copyright protection when sufficient originality is demonstrated. It also reflects judicial sensitivity toward balancing commercial confidentiality with procedural fairness in the digital era.
Case Detail
Case Title: Bennett Coleman and Company Limited Vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors.
Date of Order: 22 May 2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 560/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:______
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Suggested SEO Titles
Bennett Coleman vs Arjun Kumar: Delhi High Court on Copyright and Confidentiality in Media Industry
Delhi High Court Examines Jurisdiction Clause in Intellectual Property Dispute
News Ki Pathshala Case: Delhi HC on Media Copyright and Confidential Information
Territorial Jurisdiction in IP Disputes Explained Through Bennett Coleman Case
Delhi HC Orders Preservation of Digital Evidence in Copyright Dispute
Bennett Coleman Intellectual Property Case: Analysis of Delhi High Court Order
Delhi High Court on Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act Jurisdiction Conflict
Media Industry Employment and Confidentiality Dispute Before Delhi HC
SEO Tags
Delhi High Court, Bennett Coleman, Arjun Kumar, News Ki Pathshala, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Dispute, Confidential Information, Intellectual Property Law, Commercial Courts Act, Trade Marks Act 1999, Copyright Act 1957, Territorial Jurisdiction, Media Law, Digital Evidence, Employment Confidentiality, CS COMM 560 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, IP Litigation India, Commercial Litigation, Copyright Protection, Trademark Law India, Legal News India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
The Delhi High Court in Bennett Coleman and Company Limited vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 560/2026, considered issues relating to copyright protection, breach of confidentiality, preservation of digital evidence, and territorial jurisdiction arising from disputes connected with the media programme “News Ki Pathshala”. The Court examined the interaction between contractual exclusive jurisdiction clauses and special jurisdiction provisions under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Pending adjudication of jurisdictional objections, the Court directed preservation and sealed deposit of electronic data and recorded undertakings regarding passwords and confidential information. The order highlights judicial emphasis on protection of digital evidence and proprietary media content in commercial intellectual property disputes.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
===
