https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171042 Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was construed as providing an additional convenience forum, but not an unrestricted choice of venue detached from the dispute. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remained the general territorial rule, and the special copyright and trade mark provisions were read to permit suit where the plaintiff resides or carries on business only if the cause of action also arises there. A plaintiff could not file merely because it had an office in a place unconnected with the cause of action; the same principle was treated as applicable to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171042 Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was construed as providing an additional convenience forum, but not an unrestricted choice of venue detached from the dispute. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remained the general territorial rule, and the special copyright and trade mark provisions were read to permit suit where the plaintiff resides or carries on business only if the cause of action also arises there. A plaintiff could not file merely because it had an office in a place unconnected with the cause of action; the same principle was treated as applicable to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171042