TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned trial judge is contrary to law and facts of the case and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that appellant entered into agreement with respondent in the year 2003 and it was extended upto 31.03.2013. After expiry date, the agreement between the parties ceased. The terms of the agreement is that upon expiry of the agreement, therespondent was to abstain from making any use of the trade mark, labels or advertisement material belonging to the appellant and also to remove and efface all reference to the appellant's name and trademark from the business premises, plant and equipment of the respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that after expiry of agreement, the respondent is fraudulently marketing the appellant's products. One of the appellant's representatives purchased a bottle of beer bearing the brand name of appellants and obtained the bill. Hence, appellant filed a suit for perpetual injunction andaccounts. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Section 134 of Indian Trade Mark Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'TM Act' for short). The plaintiff is permitted to file the suit at the place where he got registered. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that Madhya Pradesh has got jurisdiction as per pleadings at para No.19 of the plaint, in which he has pleaded that defendant is located and carrying on business in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In view of the same, Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction for filing of the suit. 7. Secondly, respondent has got registered office at Bengaluruand the cause of action arises in Rajpur District, Barwani, Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that respondent having Head Office at New Delhi and working place at Bhopal and plaintiff also got office at Bhopal and cause of action arises at Barwani district of Madhya Pradesh, hence, appropriate jurisdiction for filing of the suit is Madhya Pradesh and not at the court of Bengaluru. 8. In respect of the submission, learned counsel also referred the judgment in the case of INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LIMITED (supra) and referred paragraph Nos.14, 20 and 52. 14. The explanation to Section 20 CPC has been added to the effect that corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located. In this eventuality, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of his subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Thus, the plaintiff could sue at the place of the subordinate office and cannot sue (under the scheme of the provisions of Section 134(2) and 62(2) at the place of the principal office. 10. Learned counsel submitted that "in case where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located, then the cause of action arisen in the subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Accordingly, the suit should have been filed in such a place where the subordinate office is located. 11. He also referred one more judgment reported in 2017 SCC Online Delhi 7682 and referred para No.18. 18. Reference to the word "place" in the judgments, in my opinion has to be construed as the "State". The judiciary of the State is one and the division of the territorial jurisdiction into districts is a matter of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain." A suit that could be instituted at Bengaluru under Section 134 of ITM Act was discussed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LIMITED (supra)at paragraph Nos. 14 and 18 (extracted herein above). The explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been added to the effect that Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has subordinate office at such place. Thus, "corporation" can be sued at a place having its sole or principal office and where cause of action wholly or in part, arises at a place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. As per the said judgment, one can be sued where the corporate office or sole office or head office or the subordinate office is carrying on its business. The four instances of filing the suit is explained by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ultra Home Construction Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Pursuhottam Kumar Chaubey and others and it has been discussed at Para No.13 which is extractedhereinabove. 16. In the ....