9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3. Authorization of the person filing the suit. 4. Deletion of a defendant from the array of parties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: The defendants contended that the plaint should be rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action, was not filed by a duly authorized person, and that the court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The court examined the allegations in the plaint and the documents filed, and found that the plaint prima facie disclosed a cause of action. The court emphasized that the power to reject a plaint should be used only when it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case. The plaintiff's assertion of patent infringement by the defendant requires examination, and for the purpose of the application, the averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true. The court rejected the argument that no action for infringement can lie against another patentee, stating that Section 48 of the Patents Act grants a patentee the exclusive right to prevent third parties from infringing the patent, and this right is an "exclusionary right." The court also noted that Section 107 of the Act allows every ground for revocation of a patent under Section 64 to be used as a defense in an infringement suit. The court concluded that the defendant's argument that no suit for infringement can be brought against another patentee is without merit and rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court: The defendants argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the defendant No. 3, who is the manufacturer and patent holder, is based in Bangalore, and the patent was granted by the Patent Office in Chennai. They also claimed that defendant No. 2, who is not based in Delhi, was falsely implicated to create jurisdiction. The court held that under Section 20(c) of the CPC, a suit can be instituted where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. Since the defendants were selling the impugned products in Delhi, this constituted a part of the cause of action, giving the court jurisdiction. The court noted that under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the patentee has the right to prevent infringement throughout India, and the sale of infringing products in Delhi constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's rights, thus giving the court territorial jurisdiction. 3. Authorization of the person filing the suit: The defendants contended that the suit was not filed by a duly authorized person, as no power of attorney or Board Resolution authorizing the signatory was filed. The court found this submission without merit, noting that the plaint contained a categorical statement that Mrs. Madalsa Srivastava, who signed the plaint, was duly authorized and competent to do so on behalf of the plaintiff. The court stated that this assertion must be accepted as correct for the present and that the issue of authorization can only be decided after a trial. Therefore, the court dismissed this argument. 4. Deletion of a defendant from the array of parties: The defendants sought the deletion of Shri Lalit Wadhwa from the array of defendants, arguing that he was neither the manufacturer nor the patent holder and was impleaded only to create jurisdiction and obtain an ex-parte interim order. The plaintiff argued that under Section 124 of the Patents Act, the person in charge of the company at the time of the alleged infringement is liable. The court found this reliance on Section 124, which deals with penal liability, to be fallacious in a civil action. The court noted that the plaint did not contain any clear or specific averment against Shri Lalit Wadhwa regarding his role in the alleged infringement. Consequently, the court concluded that Shri Lalit Wadhwa was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and allowed the application for his deletion from the array of defendants. Conclusion: The court dismissed I.A. No. 9649/2006, rejecting the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and allowed I.A. No. 9648/2006, ordering the deletion of Shri Lalit Wadhwa from the array of defendants. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on the defendants for the rejected application.
|
