https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196833 Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act confers an additional forum only where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain within the chosen jurisdiction. Delhi jurisdiction was rejected because the pleadings showed no office or place of business in Delhi, and sale through an independent dealer or advertisement in Delhi-circulated journals did not amount to carrying on business there or generate a sufficient cause of action. An amendment of the plaint was also refused because a wholly deficient jurisdictional pleading cannot be used to create territorial jurisdiction retrospectively; amendment is available only to clarify existing facts, not to supply a complete absence of them. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:37:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196833 Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act confers an additional forum only where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain within the chosen jurisdiction. Delhi jurisdiction was rejected because the pleadings showed no office or place of business in Delhi, and sale through an independent dealer or advertisement in Delhi-circulated journals did not amount to carrying on business there or generate a sufficient cause of action. An amendment of the plaint was also refused because a wholly deficient jurisdictional pleading cannot be used to create territorial jurisdiction retrospectively; amendment is available only to clarify existing facts, not to supply a complete absence of them. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196833