https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305072 Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act were read with Section 20 CPC and the rule in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia to hold that the plaintiff could not invoke Delhi jurisdiction merely because its principal office was there when it also carried on business at Deogarh, where the alleged infringement and passing off arose. Delhi was therefore not a proper forum on the plaint averments. Once territorial jurisdiction was found lacking, the proper course was return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, not dismissal in limine. The dismissal order was set aside and the plaint was directed to be returned for filing before the competent court. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:15:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305072 Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act were read with Section 20 CPC and the rule in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia to hold that the plaintiff could not invoke Delhi jurisdiction merely because its principal office was there when it also carried on business at Deogarh, where the alleged infringement and passing off arose. Delhi was therefore not a proper forum on the plaint averments. Once territorial jurisdiction was found lacking, the proper course was return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, not dismissal in limine. The dismissal order was set aside and the plaint was directed to be returned for filing before the competent court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305072