2016 (1) TMI 1489 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability of suit - suit has been dismissed on the ground that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same - infringement of trademark - HELD THAT - The appellant / plaintiff has its principal office in Delhi (place A). Its subordinate office is at Deogarh, Jharkhand (place B) where it runs one of its hotels (Amrapali Clarks Inn), albeit in collaboration with Clarks Inn hotels. The alleged cause of action has accrued at Deogarh, Jharkhand (place B). Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff could, in respect of the alleged cause of action in this suit, institute a suit against the defendants at Deogarh, Jharkhand (place B) but not in Delhi. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge that this court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit cannot be faulted. Interestingly, in the present case, even if the deeming fiction of the Explanation in section 20 of the Code is not imported into either of the said sections 134(2) or 62(2), on the basis of the averments made in the plaint itself it becomes clear that the plaintiff carries on business at, inter alia, Deogarh. The appellant / plaintiff carries on business in Deogarh, Jharkhand. It may also carry on business at Delhi. But, because the cause of action has allegedly arisen in Deogarh, Jharkhand, and not in Delhi, the appellant/plaintiff cannot sue the defendants/respondents in Delhi - this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. And, on this count, the decision of the learned single judge cannot be faulted. But, the suit ought not to have been dismissed. As this court did not have jurisdiction, the plaint ought to have been returned under order 7 rule 10 CPC. Only to that extent, the learned single judge had erred. The dismissal of the suit is set aside. Since this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaint is directed to be returned to the appellant/plaintiff for presentation before the proper court - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
2. Infringement of the trademark "AMRAPALI".
3. Dismissal of the suit in limine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court:
The primary issue in this case was whether the Delhi High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant argued that since its principal office was located in Delhi, the court had jurisdiction under section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned single judge, however, relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, which clarified that if the cause of action arises at a place where the plaintiff also has a subordinate office, the suit should be filed at that place. The appellant/plaintiff had a hotel in Deogarh, Jharkhand, where the cause of action arose, and thus, the court held that the suit should be filed there, not in Delhi.

2. Infringement of the trademark "AMRAPALI":
The appellant/plaintiff alleged that the defendants/respondents had launched a residential project in Deogarh, Jharkhand, under a deceptively similar name "AMBAPALI GREEN", causing confusion and potentially damaging the plaintiff's trademark "AMRAPALI". The plaintiff claimed that its trademark was well-known in Deogarh due to its hotel "Amrapali Clarks Inn" and other business activities. The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from using the name "AMBAPALI GREEN".

3. Dismissal of the suit in limine:
The learned single judge dismissed the suit in limine on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction without requiring the presence of the defendants. The appellant/plaintiff contended that even if the court found it lacked jurisdiction, the plaint should have been returned for filing before a competent court rather than being dismissed outright. The appellate court agreed with this contention, noting that the suit should not have been dismissed but rather the plaint should have been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.

Conclusion:
The appellate court upheld the learned single judge's decision that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, it set aside the dismissal of the suit and directed that the plaint be returned to the appellant/plaintiff for presentation before the proper court in Deogarh, Jharkhand. The appeal was disposed of with the parties bearing their own costs.