Delhi High Court upholds its jurisdiction to hear Zee's copyright suit against ShareChat, Moj

The Delhi High Court on December 8, 2025 refused to entertain an application filed by Mohalla Tech Private Limited, under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking return of plaint filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited on account of the captioned suit being barred by law for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the present suit.

Zee Entertainment has approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction for restraining the ShareChat and Moj from infringing its copyrighted works on their platforms, along with other ancillary reliefs. 

Zee is the owner of a large number of copyrights in sound recordings and sound audio visuals/music videos and also, the underlying musical and literary works embodied therein, belonging both to the film and non-film genre, in both Hindi and regional languages has filed a suit against Mohalla Tech, the owner of "ShareChat‟, a social networking system platform and "Moj‟ application, which is a short-video platform used for sharing content and their websites/URLs https://sharechat.com/ and https://mojapp.in.

While the parties had entered into User Content and Revenue Sharing Agreement dated 10th February, 2023, the same on 4th July, 2023, mutually agreed to terminate them. In and around August, 2023, the plaintiff, during its routine review came in the knowledge of the fact that the defendant's online platforms, i.e., both "ShareChat‟ and "Moj‟, were without any valid license or authorization, using the plaintiff's copyright in various sound recordings, including, any parts and/or underlying literary and musical works thereof, through its in built library. 

On a perusal of the plain, High Court found that the same does not pertain to breach of any prior Agreements between the parties and relates to the averment of the plaintiff regarding the unauthorized use and exploitation of the plaintiff‟s sound recordings, and underlying works therein by the defendant on its platforms. 

"None of the reliefs sought in the plaint pertain to the License Agreement or the UCRS Agreement. The submission of the defendant that the Courts at Mumbai have exclusive jurisdiction on the basis of the aforesaid Agreements is, therefore, misplaced and cannot be accepted", the High Court noted.

Justice Mini Pushkarna further noted that mere looming presence of a website in a geography and ability of the customers therein to access the website is sufficient in a given case. "...it is settled law that even in cases where a website is not directly targeted at consumers in a particular territory, the fact that the consumers are not restricted by the website to have access to it, is enough to characterize it as targeting. Therefore, even if assuming that the plaintiff has not shown any commercial transaction by a user taking place using the platforms/websites of the defendant, the same shall not negate the factum of presence and interactivity of defendant‟s platforms/websites within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As such, presence and interactivity, by themselves, would mean that the platforms/websites have their presence in each particular state, where such user resides," the single judge bench further noted.

Court has held that reading of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint clearly disclosed that part of the cause of action for the reliefs, as claimed in the present suit, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the present suit is maintainable, and the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes as raised in the present suit.  

Case Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED vs. MOHALLA TECH PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: Justice Pushkarna

Order Date: December 8, 2025