https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197659 A plaint in a passing off action was held liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC because the plaintiff failed to disclose a real cause of action and a proper territorial basis for Delhi jurisdiction. The Court held that, for such an application, only the plaint can be examined and a written statement cannot be relied on. A solitary bill and bare assertions that the defendant sold goods in Delhi were insufficient to show that the defendant carried on business in Delhi or that the cause of action arose there. The plaint was therefore rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:54:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197659 A plaint in a passing off action was held liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC because the plaintiff failed to disclose a real cause of action and a proper territorial basis for Delhi jurisdiction. The Court held that, for such an application, only the plaint can be examined and a written statement cannot be relied on. A solitary bill and bare assertions that the defendant sold goods in Delhi were insufficient to show that the defendant carried on business in Delhi or that the cause of action arose there. The plaint was therefore rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197659