AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iefs under the Copyright Act, 1957 and The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The plaintiff also sought for reliefs alleging that there was passing off the goods of the plaintiff as the goods of the defendants. 2. It is stated that an interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants challenged that order in CMA. No. 52 of 2003 before the High Court. The was disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suit. 3. Thereafter, the defendants filed I. A. No. 322 of 2004 to try the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The defendants raised a contention that the District Court, Kottayam has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The court below dismissed the application by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t contention. It is pointed out that when the application for temporary injunction and the appeal therefrom were being considered, the defendants did not raise the contention that the court has no territorial jurisdiction. A direction was issued by the High Court in C.M.A. No. 52 of 2003 to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Only at that juncture, I.A. No. 322 of 2004 was filed praying for deciding the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The counsel relied on the decisions in Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199 and Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu and another, AIR 1966 SCC 634 in support of this contention. 7. Sub Section 2 of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 reads thus: (2) F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o some extent. The territorial jurisdiction conferred upon the court in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure indisputably shall apply to a suit or proceeding under the 1957 Act as also the 1958 Act. Sub Section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act provides for an additional forum. Such additional forum was provided so as to enable the author to file a suit who may not otherwise be in a position to file a suit at different places where his copyright was violated. The Parliament while enacting the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act in the year 1958 was aware of the provisions of the 1957 Act. It still did not choose to make a similar provision therein. Such an omission may be held to be a conscious action on the part of the Parlia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 1957 Act and the violation of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is only incidental, a composite suit will lie or not, did not arise in that case. 9. In Dabur India Ltd. v. K.R. Industries, AIR 2008 SC Court 3123, the Supreme Court held thus : 27. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Parliament having inserted Sub Section (2) in Section 62 of the 1957 Act, the jurisdiction of the court thereunder would be wider than the one under Section 20 of the Code. The object and reasons for enactment of Sub Section (2) of Section 62 would also appear from the report of the Committee, as has been noticed by this Court being a provision which as been specifically designed to confer an extra benefit upon the authors who were n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yam has jurisdiction to try the suit in so far as it relates to the reliefs under the Copyright Act and incidental matters. It is also fairly clear that the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 would not be maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam as that court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of those reliefs. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is for the plaintiff to suitably amend the plaint, so that the suit will be maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam. An opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint cannot be denied in the facts and circumstances of the case. If an application for amendment i....