2014 (1) TMI 686 - SC - Companies Law

Copyright and trademark infringement - Applicability of Act - High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint - Jurisdiction of High Court - Held that - for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the court in a composite suit, both the causes of action must arise within the jurisdiction of the court which otherwise had the necessary jurisdiction to decide all the issues. However, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other - If the impediment is sought to be removed by inserting an incidental provision, there cannot be any doubt the court could be entitled to pass an interim order, but the same by no stretch of imagination can be extended to a cause of action which is founded on separate set of facts as also rights and liabilities of a party under a different Act. Provision contained in Section 134 of the 1999 Act, would not come to the aid of the plaintiff. Although, the 1999 Act was enacted on 30th December, 1999, it came into force on 15th September, 2003 vide S.O. 1048(E), dated 15th September, 2003, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(ii), dated 15th September, 2003. Since the suit in this case was filed on 19th March, 2001, it would be adjudicated under the 1958 Act. The 1958 Act does not contain a provision similar to the provision contained in Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act. Parliament being aware of the provisions of the 1957 Act still did not incorporate the same in the 1958 Act. Therefore, it can not be read into the 1958 Act by implication. The High Court had correctly concluded that the suit of the plaintiff (appellant) was a composite one. Plaintiff has filed the suit on 19th March, 2001, but the 1999 Act was not enforced till 15th September, 2003. In our opinion, the High Court has passed the order in exercise of its discretionary powers taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion exercised by the High Court can not be said to be either erroneous or perverse. It has been exercised only to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The defendant (respondent) could not dispute that in so far as suit predicated on the Copy Right is concerned, the Court at Kottayam is having requisite jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copy Right Act. Therefore, had the suit been filed for violation of copy right alone, the Court at Kottayam could validly entertain the same. By permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as that the suit will be maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam, no error was committed by the High Court - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Maintainability of Composite Suit under the 1957 Act and 1958 Act
3. Amendment of Plaint

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The primary issue revolves around whether the District Court in Kottayam has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the suit was maintainable in Kottayam under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits filing a suit where the plaintiff resides. The defendant contended that since their goods were not available in Kottayam and they did not reside or conduct business there, the court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court initially dismissed the defendant's application challenging jurisdiction but was directed by the High Court to reconsider. Upon reconsideration, the trial court upheld its jurisdiction, which was subsequently overturned by the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that the court at Kottayam had no jurisdiction under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, but had jurisdiction under the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. Maintainability of Composite Suit under the 1957 Act and 1958 Act:
The plaintiff filed a composite suit seeking relief under both the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The High Court ruled that such a composite suit was not maintainable, as the court must have jurisdiction over the entire cause of action and all the reliefs sought. The Supreme Court upheld this view, referencing the judgments in Dhodha House vs. S.K. Maingi and Dabur India Ltd. vs. K.R. Industries, which clarified that a composite suit is only maintainable if both causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the court. The court cannot acquire jurisdiction by combining two causes of action when it only has jurisdiction over one.

3. Amendment of Plaint:
Despite ruling that the composite suit was not maintainable, the High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint to make the suit maintainable in Kottayam. The defendant challenged this, arguing that the High Court should have rejected the plaint outright. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the discretion to allow the amendment was exercised to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The court emphasized that the High Court's decision was neither erroneous nor perverse and was made in consideration of the entire facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that permitting the amendment was appropriate, given that under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a composite suit could be filed and maintained in Kottayam.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that the suit, as originally filed, was not maintainable in Kottayam due to lack of jurisdiction under the 1958 Act. However, the court upheld the High Court's decision to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to make the suit maintainable under the 1957 Act, thus avoiding multiple litigations. The judgment underscores the importance of jurisdictional requirements and the conditions under which composite suits can be maintained.