This case revolves around a critical interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended by the 2021 legislative changes. The dispute arose regarding whether the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights, whose office is located in New Delhi. 

The matter delves into the territorial jurisdiction, the forum of appeal, and the applicable procedure, especially in light of the amended statutory framework post-2021. The ruling provides a reasoned approach to jurisdictional limitations and the legislative intent of decentralizing appellate forums for copyright-related disputes.

Detailed Factual Background:
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited, the appellant, is a company engaged in business within the state of Jharkhand. It filed an appeal under Section 72(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights situated in New Delhi. The impugned order adversely affected the copyright-related interests of the appellant, and thus, they approached the High Court of Jharkhand for redressal.

The dispute took a jurisdictional turn when the respondent, particularly Respondent No. 6, raised objections asserting that only the Delhi High Court could entertain such appeals, as the office of the authority passing the order was located there. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that both parties, including Respondent No. 6, carried out business operations within Jharkhand, and thus the Jharkhand High Court had jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 72.

Detailed Procedural Background:
The appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 316 of 2024 before the High Court of Jharkhand. The matter came before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi for hearing on the issue of maintainability, as preliminary objections were raised by the respondents. Extensive arguments were presented concerning the interpretation of Section 72 of the Copyright Act as amended in 2021, particularly the omission of territorial restrictions seen in the earlier version of the law.

The respondents relied on prior judgments and statutory interpretations to assert that jurisdiction solely vests with the Delhi High Court, whereas the appellants referred to their business operations within Jharkhand as sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction.

Issues Involved in the Case:
The case involved two principal legal issues. First, whether the High Court of Jharkhand had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957, after its 2021 amendment! Second, whether such appeals are mandatorily required to be heard by a Division Bench or whether a Single Judge is competent to hear the matter at the initial stage?

Detailed Submission of Parties:

• The Respondent No. 6 submitted that as the order under challenge was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights whose office is situated at New Delhi, only the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction.
• He relied upon the case of Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769, particularly paragraphs 13 and 38, to argue against forum shopping and the dangers of conflicting jurisdictional interpretations among different High Courts.
• He further contended that the amendment to Section 72 should not be interpreted to override the requirement of centralised jurisdiction where the authority resides.
• Respondent No. 6 further argued that under Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, Rule 384 mandates that appeals under Section 72 of the Copyright Act should be heard by a Division Bench, and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable before a Single Judge.
• The appellant rebutted these submissions by asserting that post the 2021 amendment to the Copyright Act, Section 72 allows appeals to the "High Court" without restricting it to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
• He cited Sumitra Nandan Gupta v. Copyright Board, 1970 SCC OnLine Del 103, to argue that an appeal can be maintained where the appellant resides or conducts business.
• He also referred to Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2020) 19 SCC 380, to support the proposition that territorial jurisdiction can lie where the cause of action arises and where the affected party resides or operates.
• On the issue of Single Judge vs. Division Bench, it was contended that under amended Section 72(2), an appeal is to be heard by a Single Judge, who may refer it to a Bench if deemed appropriate.
• He distinguished the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, by noting that these rules predate the statutory amendment and therefore cannot override legislative provisions.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited:

• The key judgment relied upon by the respondent was Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769.
• In that case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of forum shopping and stressed that jurisdiction cannot be extended arbitrarily to High Courts based merely on the location of tribunals or appellate authorities.
• The judgment emphasized consistency in judicial decisions and the risk of legal uncertainty if multiple High Courts entertain similar matters leading to divergent views.
• The appellant countered this reliance by referring to Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2020) 19 SCC 380, where the Supreme Court distinguished Ambica Industries by affirming the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court even though the tribunal was based elsewhere.
• It held that the place of original cause of action remains a relevant consideration for establishing jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
• In Sumitra Nandan Gupta v. Copyright Board, 1970 SCC OnLine Del 103, the Delhi High Court acknowledged that multiple High Courts can have jurisdiction based on the residence and business of the parties, and that the existence of jurisdiction in one court does not negate it in another, provided statutory conditions are met.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge:

• Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi began by analyzing both the unamended and amended texts of Section 72 of the Copyright Act.
• The earlier provision explicitly granted jurisdiction to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellant resided or carried on business.
• The 2021 amendment simplified this provision, stating that an appeal may lie to "the High Court," without incorporating any restrictive territorial clause.
• The judge observed that this change signaled a legislative intention to decentralize the appeal process, enabling High Courts to hear cases where parties reside or operate, thereby reducing dependency on the Delhi High Court.
• The Judge reasoned that if the legislature intended exclusive jurisdiction for the Delhi High Court, such language would have been expressly provided in the amended statute.
• He further held that the presence of both parties in Jharkhand, along with their business operations within the State, clearly vested jurisdiction with the Jharkhand High Court.
• The judge emphasized that jurisdiction is determined not just by the location of the authority passing the order but also by where the cause of action arises and where the parties reside or carry on business.
• Regarding the question of whether a Single Judge could hear the matter, the Court interpreted Section 72(2) to mean that the appeal is to be heard by a Single Judge unless he deems it appropriate to refer the matter to a Division Bench.
• The Judge clarified that the High Court Rules cannot override a statutory provision, and the discretion vested in the Single Judge under the proviso of Section 72(2) remains paramount.
• The Court also cited Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2023) 14 SCC 782, to affirm that a High Court need not await decisions in pending references before other benches and must decide based on the law existing at the time of hearing.

Final Decision:
The High Court of Jharkhand held that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction raised by Respondent No. 6 was rejected. The appeal was held to be maintainable before the Single Judge, with the option of reference to Division Bench if the judge so decides during the course of hearing on merits.

Law Settled in this Case:
This case establishes that post the 2021 amendment of Section 72 of the Copyright Act, High Courts other than Delhi can exercise jurisdiction over appeals, provided the parties conduct business or reside within their territorial limits. It also affirms that such appeals are maintainable before a Single Judge, who retains discretion to refer the matter to a Division Bench. The ruling further clarifies that procedural High Court Rules cannot override substantive statutory amendments and that the law in force at the time of hearing governs the court's adjudicatory authority.

Case Title: Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v/s. The Controller General of Patents
Date of Order: 30th April 2025
Case No.: Misc. Appeal No. 316 of 2024
Court: High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

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
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539