Trade mark and copyright suits may be filed where the plaintiff carries on business through a branch office, without Clause 12 leave.

Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 create an additional forum for infringement suits at the place where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, overriding the Code of Civil Procedure and other laws. The expression "carries on business" was interpreted broadly to include business conducted through a branch office, not merely the principal place of business. At the jurisdictional threshold, only the plaint averments were relevant, and the defendants' counter-averments could not defeat the plaint. Because the suits fell within these special provisions, prior leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was not required, and the plaint rejection was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suits for infringement of trade mark and copyright were maintainable before the Madras High Court on the footing that the plaintiffs carried on business within its jurisdiction, and whether prior leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was required.

Analysis: Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 confer an additional forum on the person instituting the suit by permitting institution where that person actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, notwithstanding the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law in force. The expression "carries on business" was construed broadly to include business carried on through a branch office and was not confined to the principal place of business. In an objection to jurisdiction at the threshold, the plaint averments alone were relevant and the defendants' counter-averments could not be used to reject the plaint. Since the suits fell within the special jurisdictional provisions, the requirement of prior leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent did not arise.

Conclusion: The suits were maintainable in the Madras High Court and the rejection of the plaints was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For infringement suits governed by Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plaintiff may sue where it carries on business, including through a branch office, and the special non obstante forum provision overrides the ordinary jurisdictional requirements and Clause 12 leave.

---