Zee flags 9,400+ infringements; Delhi HC rejects ShareChat plea in Copyright case

The Delhi High Court has refused to return the plaint filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) against Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd, the owner of ShareChat and Moj, holding that the suit—alleging large-scale copyright infringement on the company’s social media platforms—is maintainable within its jurisdiction.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, delivering the judgment on December 8, 2025, rejected Mohalla Tech’s application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the parties had agreed to “exclusive jurisdiction” of Mumbai courts under earlier commercial agreements. The Court held that the present case did not arise out of contractual disputes but from an alleged statutory infringement of copyright, and therefore the jurisdiction clauses in the previous agreements did not govern this suit.

The suit, filed by ZEEL, accuses ShareChat and Moj of enabling users to access and use ZEEL’s copyrighted sound recordings, music videos and underlying works through the platforms’ in-built music libraries even after the expiry of all licensing arrangements. ZEEL told the Court that around 1,395 infringing instances were identified on ShareChat and over 8,000 on Moj in August 2023 during a routine review, despite repeated reminders to Mohalla Tech to purge its content following the expiry of their licence.

Zee argued that the licence agreement, last amended in 2022, expired on July 14, 2023, and the User Content and Revenue Sharing Agreement (UCRS), under which ZEEL supplied long-form video content to ShareChat, was mutually terminated with effect from August 1, 2023. Despite these terminations, according to Zee, ShareChat and Moj continued to allow users to select ZEEL-owned music clips from their in-built catalogue when creating short videos.

Mohalla Tech denied these allegations. In its response, it said all licensed content had been removed and contended that it functioned as an “intermediary” under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, meaning it could not be held liable for user-generated content. It further argued that since both agreements between the parties had Mumbai jurisdiction clauses, the Delhi High Court could not adjudicate the matter.

The Court rejected this contention. It held that the plaint was not grounded in a breach of contract but in alleged infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. “The subject matter of the suit does not arise out of or in connection with the agreements,” the Court observed, adding that the plaintiff’s statutory rights could not be ousted by contractual jurisdiction clauses governing commercial arrangements that had already expired.

The Court also accepted ZEEL’s contention that Mohalla Tech “carries on business” in Delhi because its platforms are accessible to users across the city, who can upload, create or view videos containing allegedly infringing content. Citing precedents on internet-based infringement, the Court held that accessibility and interactivity of the platforms in Delhi were sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.

Justice Pushkarna referenced prior rulings where Delhi courts have held that online platforms offering interactive services are deemed to purposefully avail jurisdiction in all territories where they are accessible, especially in cases involving intellectual property.

The Court noted that allowing users to search, download and synchronize copyrighted songs through the platforms’ in-built libraries constituted prima facie infringement if done without licence, and this alleged activity occurred in Delhi as well. Therefore, part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.

The Court also recorded that it had earlier directed Mohalla Tech to ensure that none of ZEEL’s 134 films or clips listed under the UCRS agreement be available in its audio library, though no interim injunction had been granted on cover versions, remixes or user-generated content as per ZEEL’s initial submission. A clarification application by ZEEL on that point remains pending.