Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

Judicial Remand and Court Fee Refund

Factual Background and Dispute:The dispute originated when Nilesh Girkar, the appellant, filed a suit against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and others, raising grievances that invoked a commercial dispute. The suit's exact subject matter is  led to a disagreement over whether the court where the suit was filed had proper jurisdiction. The initial dismissal of the suit brought to fore questions about how and why a court may decline to hear a matter at the preliminary stage, particularly under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows a court to reject a plaint for several technical and substantive reasons.

Procedural Details:After Nilesh Girkar filed his suit, the Commercial Court rejected the plaint against Respondent 1 (Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited) under Order VII Rule 11A of the CPC and returned the plaint against Respondents 2 to 5 under Order VII Rule 10. Order VII Rule 11A essentially empowers a court to reject a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action or if any legal bar arises. Meanwhile, Order VII Rule 10 concerns instances where a court returns a plaint due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then approached the High Court in appeal against this procedural decision, challenging both the rejection and return of the plaint and seeking further remedy for the suit to be reconsidered on merits.

Detailed Reasoning and Judgement Discussion:The High Court’s judgment centres around key statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The appellant’s counsel drew attention to the Division Bench’s earlier decision in Darshan Aggarwal v Kuldeep 1998 ( 1) RCR Civil 425, which set out circumstances under which a refund of court fees is permissible when a suit is remanded after being dismissed at a preliminary stage. The court then examined Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, which states that if a suit is remanded in appeal under any grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the (erstwhile) CPC, the appellant should get a certificate for a refund of all appeal fees paid. 

Order XLI Rule 23 of the CPC allows a higher appellate court to remand a case when the trial court passed a decree on a preliminary point, and the appellate court finds it necessary for the lower court to hear and decide the entire matter afresh. The High Court found that in this case, the Commercial Court had made errors: it wrongly rejected the plaint against Respondent 1 under Order VII Rule 11A and had territorial jurisdiction, so the suit should have been entertained against all parties. The error in prematurely rejecting the plaint meant the suit was remanded for a proper, full hearing in the Commercial Court. Thus, the conditions for remand (as understood under Order XLI Rule 23) were met.

Decision:After considering the legal provisions and precedents, the High Court held that it had earlier remanded the suit for reconsideration due to an error in the initial rejection by the Commercial Court. Because the remand satisfied the statutory and judicial requirements, the appellant was entitled to a refund of all court fees paid on the appeal. The court ordered the Registry to issue a certificate to allow the appellant to claim the refund within four weeks from the order date. This decision places emphasis on the right of litigants to reclaim fees where a suit is wrongly dismissed at a threshold stage and then is reinstated by way of appellate review and remand.

Case Title: Nilesh Girkar Vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited & Ors.

Order Date: 15 October 2025

Case Number: RFACOMM 251/2025

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble 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

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.

Issuance of notices: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.

Partial Rejection of Plaint, not permissible: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.

Part of cause of action and Jurisdiction: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).

Accessibility of Platform and Jurisdiction: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.

Judgements Referred: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