https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280584 Territorial jurisdiction for a trade mark suit was examined by reading Section 20 CPC harmoniously with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Although the agreement was executed at Bengaluru and the plaintiff had its head office there, the pleadings showed that the alleged infringement and cause of action arose in Madhya Pradesh, where the defendant carried on business. The explanation to Section 20 CPC treats a corporation as carrying on business at its principal office and also at a subordinate office where the cause of action arises. On that basis, the plaintiff's Bengaluru head office did not by itself confer jurisdiction, and the plaint's return for presentation before the proper court in Madhya Pradesh was justified. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 May 2019 07:18:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280584 Territorial jurisdiction for a trade mark suit was examined by reading Section 20 CPC harmoniously with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Although the agreement was executed at Bengaluru and the plaintiff had its head office there, the pleadings showed that the alleged infringement and cause of action arose in Madhya Pradesh, where the defendant carried on business. The explanation to Section 20 CPC treats a corporation as carrying on business at its principal office and also at a subordinate office where the cause of action arises. On that basis, the plaintiff's Bengaluru head office did not by itself confer jurisdiction, and the plaint's return for presentation before the proper court in Madhya Pradesh was justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280584