9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue where the defendant or any of them resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. Further, the Explanation to Section 20 C.P.C., has been added to the effect that Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has subordinate office at such place. Thus, 'corporation' can be sued at a place having its sole or principal office and where cause of action wholly or in part, arises at a place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. The provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in a purposive manner and that a Suit can be filed by the plaintiff at a place where he is residing or carrying on business or personally works for gain and he need not travel to file a suit to a place where defendant is residing or cause of action wholly or in part arises, however, if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a place where cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant is also releasing their goods being the same pharmaceutical preparations under the same trade mark OLMIN thereby causing confusion in the market and the sale effected by the defendant amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's mark. 4. The defendant on receipt of notice in the Suit filed an Application in A.No.637 of 2014, under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, as there is no cause of action for filing the Suit and this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudge the Suit. Though several contentions appear to have been raised in the said Application, the defendant confined their arguments only with regard to the maintainability of the Suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the suit in terms of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendant contended that the plaintiff is not having its office at Chennai and therefore, the Suit is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court. One more contention raised by the defendant was that there was only one bill produced by the plaintiff to substantiate their contention and the said medical shop from which the product was purchased, has not been made as a defendant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction of this Court to file the Suit is completely against law and is an incorrect interpretation of law. Further, it is submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Single Judge have no relevance to the facts of the case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smithkline French Laboratories Ltd., vs. Indoco Remedies reported in 2001 (2) CTC 539, Wipro Limited vs. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Ltd ., reported in 2008 (3) CTC 724 . 8. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant while seeking to sustain the impugned order submitted that in view of the Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act in the absence of substantial cause of action either whole or in part and when the plaintiff nor the defendant are carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Suit is not maintainable before this Court and the shop from which the drug is said to have been purchased has not been impleaded as a defendant and for all these reasons, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the provisions of the Trade Marks Act would pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and it is clear that additional remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is residing or carrying on business etc; as the case may be, that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to file a suit where the defendant resides or where cause of action arose. It was further pointed out that Section 20(a) and Section 20(b) usually provides the venue where the defendant or any of them resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. Further, the Explanation to Section 20 C.P.C., has been added to the effect that Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has subordinate office at such place. Thus, 'corporation' can be sued at a place having its sole or principal office and where cause of action wholly or in part, arises at a place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. After referring to the various decisions cited at the bar, it was held that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 2007 (35) PTC 177(Del); (iv) Brooke Bond (India) Limited vs. Balaji Tea (India) Pvt., Ltd., reported in 1993 (2) MLJ 132; (v) Marico Industries Limited and Anr., vs. Sarfaraj Trading Company and Ors ., reported in 2002 (25) PTC 93 (Bom) (DB); (vi) Smithkline Beecham Plc and Anr., vs. Sunil Singhi and Anr. , reported in 2001 PTC (Del.) 321; (vii) Ramchander Laxminarayanan Karva vs. Jagnath Khubchand Karva Anr .,reported in 1994 (14) PTC 218 (Mad); and after noting Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act and held as follows:- 54.In two eventualities, the question of obtaining prior leave would not arise, i.e., when the plaintiff resides within the jurisdiction of the Court, benefit conferred by Section 134(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and when the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the Court. It is in the third eventuality which is material for the controversy. On the plea of the appellant that the situs of the Trademark Registry within the jurisdiction of the Court would give a part of cause of action on the issue of registration of the trademark alone being sufficient, we have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
