2020 (11) TMI 1074 - HC - Indian Laws

Revocation of leave granted to the appellant/plaintiff to sue them - infringement of patent of the appellant/plaintiff - HELD THAT - Within the city of Madras, both the City Civil Court presided by District Judges has additional courts which is also and the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain civil suits relating to violation of Patent. Under Clause12 of the Letters Patent, a plaintiff may file a suit in the High Court before the Original Side when the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen within its territorial limits, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant may not be carrying on business within its territorial limits - Chartered High Courts governed by the Letters Patent have been given discretion to grant a leave to sue to the plaintiff/plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Where either a part of cause of action arises within its jurisdiction or where the defendant(s) reside(s) outside its jurisdiction, the High Court exercises this discretion at the threshold even before the plaint is received for being numbered as a suit. Since the dispute in the present case pertains to the alleged violation of the patents of the appellant/plaintiff, the jurisdiction of Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has to be read in conjunction with Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 and not in conjunction with Section 104A of the Patent Act, 1970. Section 104 of the Patent Act - Section 104A of the Patent Act, 1970 is not concerned with Jurisdiction of the Court. It is concerned with burden of proof in case of a process patent as is evident from a reading of Section 104A of the Patent Act, 1970. For granting leave, the Court should consider the grant of leave from the angle of Forum non conveniens/Forum conveniens. They are the relevant factor for the Court while either granting or revoking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. What exactly is the purport of Forum non conveniens/Forum conveniens and how it has been decided and considered have not been clearly spelled out by the domestic Courts in India - The object of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is to find that forum which is the more suitable for trying the suit to meet the ends of justice, and is preferable because pursuit of the litigation in that forum is more likely to secure those ends. The onus lies on the defendant to show that there exists another forum which is more appropriate to try the action. This appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
2. Jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.
3. Allegations of forum shopping by the plaintiff.
4. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens.
5. Sufficiency of cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of Leave Granted Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent
The appeals were filed against the common order dated 21.01.2020, where the Single Judge revoked the leave granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendants under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court held that the leave should be revoked due to lack of jurisdiction, as the defendants were not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the cause of action stated in the plaint was insignificant.

2. Jurisdiction of the Madras High Court
The plaintiff argued that the suit was maintainable within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court based on the sale of infringing products in Chennai by the 4th defendant. The court examined whether a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish this.

3. Allegations of Forum Shopping by the Plaintiff
The defendants contended that the plaintiff had engaged in forum shopping by filing the suit in the Madras High Court after failing to secure an interim injunction in similar suits filed in Delhi and Mumbai. They argued that the plaintiff had manipulated the jurisdiction by placing trap orders through the 4th defendant, who was not an authorized dealer.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens/Non Conveniens
The court discussed the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens, which aims to find the most suitable forum for the trial to meet the ends of justice. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and entitled to choose the forum. The defendants must demonstrate that another forum is more appropriate and convenient for trying the suit.

5. Sufficiency of Cause of Action Within the Jurisdiction of the Court
The court held that the existence of a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction is sufficient to maintain the suit. The evidence regarding the sale of infringing products within the jurisdiction should be assessed during the trial, not at the stage of granting or revoking leave. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient averments in the plaint to establish a part of the cause of action within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the leave granted to the plaintiff was restored. The court directed that the suit be tried expeditiously under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The decision emphasized that the jurisdictional issues should be addressed based on the averments in the plaint and not on the evidence at the preliminary stage. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens while granting or revoking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

← Previous Next →