https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337495 In a territorial jurisdiction challenge under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Delhi HC held that the plaint had to be examined only on its averments and on demurrer. Reading the plaint as a whole, the pleaded cause of action arose from the defendants' existing use of the impugned mark and label in Andhra Pradesh, while the reference to apprehended sales in Delhi was a bare assertion unsupported by facts. The Court held that a quia timet action requires a present, reasonable apprehension of future injury, which was not made out on the pleadings. No part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen in Delhi, so the plaint was liable to be returned. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:15:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337495 In a territorial jurisdiction challenge under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Delhi HC held that the plaint had to be examined only on its averments and on demurrer. Reading the plaint as a whole, the pleaded cause of action arose from the defendants' existing use of the impugned mark and label in Andhra Pradesh, while the reference to apprehended sales in Delhi was a bare assertion unsupported by facts. The Court held that a quia timet action requires a present, reasonable apprehension of future injury, which was not made out on the pleadings. No part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen in Delhi, so the plaint was liable to be returned. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337495