2018 (4) TMI 1702 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction for filing of the suit - Whether Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction for filing of the suit or not? - HELD THAT - The agreement between the parties has taken place at Bengaluru and also Head Office of the plaintiff situated at Bengaluru - The Court committed an error by allowing the application for retuning the plaint. No doubt,agreement between the parties had taken place at Bengaluru and Head Office of the plaintiff is at Bengaluru but the cause of action has arisen at Bharwani District of Madhya Pradesh. When that is the case, as per Section 20 of CPC, plaintiff has got cause to file suit either at Bengaluru or where the cause of action has arisen. The case of the appellant is to be considered for the purpose of filing a suit, it is the State in which the appellant carries on business. It is to be taken into account, though the appellant states that he has got subordinate office at Bhopal at Madhya Pradesh that itself is sufficient for the purrpose of jurisdiction in Madhya Pradesh - The submission of the appellant that cause of action has arisen in Bharwani District, where the appellant having subordinate office at Bhopal, but principal office at Bengaluru is not a ground to file a suit in Bengaluru. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction for filing the suit.
2. Applicability of Section 134 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction for filing the suit:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and accounts in the Bengaluru court. The respondent/defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, requesting the return of the plaint to be filed in the jurisdictional court of Madhya Pradesh. The trial court allowed this application, directing the plaint to be returned for filing before the proper jurisdictional District court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant challenged this order, asserting that the trial judge's decision was contrary to law and facts of the case, arguing that the agreement between the parties was executed in Bengaluru, and the appellant's registered office is also located there.

2. Applicability of Section 134 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The appellant contended that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the suit could be filed at the place where the plaintiff is registered, which in this case is Bengaluru. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Performing Rights Society Limited Vs. Sanjay Dalia, emphasizing that the plaintiff could file a suit where they reside or carry on business, and not necessarily where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. The appellant argued that since the agreement and the registered office are in Bengaluru, the suit should be maintainable there.

3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
The respondent countered that the appropriate jurisdiction for filing the suit was Madhya Pradesh, as per the pleadings in the plaint which stated that the defendant is located and carrying on business in Madhya Pradesh. The respondent also cited the Indian Performing Rights Society Limited case, arguing that if the cause of action arises at a place where the plaintiff has a subordinate office, the suit should be filed there. The trial court's decision was based on the fact that the cause of action arose in Barwani District, Madhya Pradesh, and thus, the suit should be filed there as per Section 20 of CPC.

Judgment Analysis:
The court acknowledged that the agreement between the parties and its expiration were undisputed. The appellant's claim was that the respondent continued business operations contrary to the agreement, and the cause of action arose in Barwani District, Madhya Pradesh. The court noted that under Section 20 of CPC, a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its principal office or where the cause of action arises, including subordinate offices.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Indian Performing Rights Society Limited, which clarified that a suit could be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, but if the cause of action arises at a place where the plaintiff has a subordinate office, the suit must be filed there. The Delhi High Court's judgment in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey was also cited, which outlined scenarios for jurisdiction based on the location of the principal and subordinate offices and where the cause of action arises.

The court concluded that the appellant's principal office being in Bengaluru was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction there, given that the cause of action arose in Madhya Pradesh and the appellant had a subordinate office in Bhopal. Therefore, the trial court's order to return the plaint for filing in Madhya Pradesh was upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appropriate jurisdiction for filing the suit was Madhya Pradesh, where the cause of action arose and the appellant had a subordinate office, in line with Section 20 of CPC and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.