1965 (1) TMI 66 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action instituted by the plaintiffs and had no power to make an order issuing a temporary injunction? Held that - By jurisdiction is meant the extent of the power Which is conferred upon the Court by its constitution to try a proceeding; its exercise cannot be enlarged because what the learned Judge calls an extraordinary situation requires the Court to exercise it. The appeal must therefore be allowed. Temporary injunction granted by the High Court is vacated and the plaint is ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain passing off action under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958.

Analysis:
The case involved the issue of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a passing off action under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958. The plaintiffs had filed a suit in the High Court of Mysore seeking a declaration of ownership of a trade mark and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants argued that the action should have been instituted in the District Court as per the Act. The Court noted that the High Court could exercise jurisdiction as a District Court only if it was invested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction, which was not the case here. The High Court of Mysore primarily had appellate jurisdiction and could only exercise original jurisdiction in specific matters as provided by special Acts.

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Mysore Act 5 of 1962, which regulated the powers of the High Court in Mysore. It was observed that the Act did not confer ordinary original civil jurisdiction on the High Court. The Court highlighted that the jurisdiction of a court is defined by the subject matter, pecuniary value, and local limits, and unless expressly conferred by special statutes, the High Court of Mysore exercised appellate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the High Court could not assume jurisdiction not conferred by law, and the exercise of jurisdiction was limited to matters within its cognizance.

The defendants also argued that the High Court could assume original jurisdiction in extraordinary situations under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 151 preserved the inherent power of the Court but did not authorize the High Court to invest itself with jurisdiction not provided by law. The Court further dismissed reliance on a judgment by Narayana Pai, J., which suggested that a High Court could confer original jurisdiction on itself in extraordinary situations, emphasizing that jurisdiction could not be expanded based on perceived extraordinary circumstances.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, vacated the temporary injunction granted by the High Court, and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court. The parties were instructed to bear their own costs as no objections were raised before the High Court regarding the maintainability of the suit or the application for injunction.