2000 (2) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce on behalf of the respondent. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. After hearing the Counsel, we are of the view that the impugned judgment dated 11th February, 2000 cannot be sustained. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for passing off trade mark and infringement of copyright besides rendition of accounts against the defendant. plaintiff is said to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds: (a) Such a suit lies only against the manufacturer of the article in question and the defendant is not shown to be the manufacturer. (b) The plaintiff has not produced any cash memos to show the sale of the infringing article. (c) That this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the view that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as 1983 PTC 207. Similarly, at this stage it could not have been said that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The averments in the plaint are sufficient for present purposes. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction can be, if at all considered at a later stage it may require evidence to be led to determine territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly the impugned judgment....