2016 (1) TMI 952 - HC - Companies Law

Territorial jurisdiction - Seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trade mark, passing off and damages etc. - Held that - no doubt law entitles a plaintiff to file a suit where a cause of action arises in whole or in part in Delhi and even if neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resides or carries on business at Delhi, however, I find it very peculiar for the plaintiff/Company in the present suit which has its office at Mumbai i.e not at Delhi, that such a plaintiff/Company is suing defendants not by filing a suit in Mumbai and that it is suing defendants who are residing and/or carrying on business not at Delhi but at Bengaluru in Karnataka or Gurgaon in Haryana. Putting it in other words, there is lack of convenience as regards the place of suing, both to the plaintiff and the defendants. In fact, Sections 22 and 23 of CPC deal with the situations which emerge in cases such as the present where in spite of a court having territorial jurisdiction where a suit is instituted, yet, if the court where the suit is filed finds that the suit can be well tried more conveniently at other place which also has the territorial jurisdiction, then in such cases the appropriate High Court is entitled to transfer the suit to other convenient place which otherwise has jurisdiction and where the suit would be more appropriately tried i.e the principle of forum conveniens so far as the parties to the suit are concerned. Plaints returned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Interpretation of "carrying on business" under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Application of the principle of forum conveniens.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The plaintiff filed suits seeking a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and damages. The plaintiff, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has no office in Delhi. The defendants are located in Gurgaon and Bengaluru. The plaintiff claimed territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court based on its business activities in Delhi through its website. The relevant para of the plaint states that the plaintiff's ticketing services are availed by consumers in Delhi, and transactions are concluded in Delhi, thus conferring jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. Interpretation of "Carrying on Business" under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The court examined whether the plaintiff, a corporation, could be said to be "carrying on business" in Delhi by virtue of its internet transactions. The plaintiff relied on the judgment in World Wrestling Entertainment Vs. Reshma Collection, which held that internet transactions could confer territorial jurisdiction. However, the court noted that this judgment did not address the specific issue of a corporation "carrying on business" without having an office in the jurisdiction.

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company and Indian Performing Rights Society Limited Vs. Sanjay Dalia and Another. These judgments clarified that for a corporation to be considered as "carrying on business" at a place, it must have a principal office, head office, registered office, or branch office at that place. The court concluded that since the plaintiff company did not have any such office in Delhi, it could not be said to be "carrying on business" in Delhi.

3. Application of the Principle of Forum Conveniens:
The court observed that although a plaintiff is entitled to file a suit where the cause of action arises, the principle of forum conveniens should be considered. The plaintiff company is based in Mumbai, and the defendants are located in Gurgaon and Bengaluru, making Delhi an inconvenient forum for both parties. The court noted that Sections 22 and 23 of the CPC address situations where a suit, despite being filed in a court with territorial jurisdiction, may be more conveniently tried in another jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the return of the plaints to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, as the plaintiff company did not have an office in Delhi, and thus, the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction based on the plaintiff "carrying on business" in Delhi. The court emphasized the importance of the principle of forum conveniens, suggesting that the suits could be more appropriately tried in Mumbai, where the plaintiff is based, or in the jurisdictions where the defendants are located.