2014 (10) TMI 1059 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to assail the territorial jurisdiction of this Court invoked by the original writ petitioner - doctrine of forum conveniens - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the first respondent s business is located at Mumbai. This gave rise to the first respondent filing applications under the Patents Act in the Office of the Registrar of Patents at Mumbai, and the patents of the first respondent were registered at Mumbai. It is in fact the petitioner which was aggrieved by the registration of the patents in favour of the first respondent and sought revocation of the patents by initiating proceedings before the Gujarat High Court. In those proceedings, the first respondent took an objection about the jurisdiction of that Court. The first respondent also initiated criminal proceedings before the X Metropolitan Magistrate s Court at Mumbai. He had also filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which he subsequently withdrew on account of other reasons. The petitioner was desirous of an early adjudication on the issue of the applications filed for revocation of patents. The parties thus joined together to have the matter heard at Chennai, which was the Principal Seat of the IPAB, on account of time being at the disposal of the IPAB. It is in this context that the hearing was held by the IPAB at Chennai and the final order was passed at Chennai and not at Mumbai. In our view, this was an arrangement only for convenience of hearing - Merely because both the parties having agreed to get the matter heard early, made arrangements through their counsel to attend the hearings at Chennai being the Principal Seat of the IPAB, would not make a difference and it is a fit case where the principle of forum conveniens should be invoked and the parties be put to adjudication before the High Court of Bombay, rather than this Court. The present factual matrix is not even where it is the situs of the appellate authority in question. The Bench of the appellate authority was actually located at Mumbai and thus, only for convenience of hearing for certain days were sittings held at Chennai. This is a distinct factor, even though the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Sterling Agro s case 2012 (6) TMI 76 - DELHI HIGH COURT - LB had in fact observed that an order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of the cause of action, yet the same may not be a singular factor, and the High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The mere fact that hearing was held at Chennai rather than at Mumbai on account of a given inadequacy of sittings at Mumbai by the IPAB Circuit Bench at Mumbai, thus would not imply that this Court should necessarily exercise the jurisdiction. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens.
3. Interpretation of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
4. Impact of the location of the hearing on jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue was whether the Madras High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions filed by the original writ petitioner, who challenged the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The original writ petitioner argued that since the hearings and final orders were conducted and passed at Chennai, the Madras High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Conversely, the petitioner contended that the appropriate jurisdiction lay with the Mumbai Court, given that the patents were registered in Mumbai and the original proceedings commenced there.

2. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens:
The petitioner invoked the doctrine of forum conveniens, arguing that the Madras High Court should not exercise jurisdiction merely because a part of the cause of action arose in Chennai. The petitioner cited several cases, including *Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India* and *Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs*, to support the argument that the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate for adjudicating the matter.

3. Interpretation of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India:
The court analyzed the implications of Article 226(2), which allows a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arises within its territory. The court noted that while this provision does confer jurisdiction, it does not compel the High Court to decide the matter if another forum is more appropriate. The court referred to several judgments, including *Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal* and *U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P.*, to elucidate that the existence of jurisdiction at multiple locations does not necessarily mean that all such courts should exercise it.

4. Impact of the Location of the Hearing on Jurisdiction:
The court noted that the hearings were conducted in Chennai purely for convenience due to the backlog of cases at the IPAB Circuit Bench in Mumbai. The court emphasized that this arrangement for convenience should not shift the jurisdiction from Mumbai to Chennai. The court found the argument that the hearings at Chennai conferred jurisdiction on the Madras High Court to be unconvincing. The court concluded that the principle of forum conveniens should be applied, and the matter should be adjudicated in Mumbai, where the original proceedings and significant events occurred.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application filed by the petitioner, applying the principles of forum conveniens. It held that the Madras High Court should not exercise jurisdiction in this case and directed that the proceedings be initiated in the competent court at Mumbai. The writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to the writ petitioner to file the proceedings in Mumbai.