Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2008 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 857 - HC - Companies LawOriginal Jurisdiction of High Court - under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent - Permanent injunction - infringement of trade mark or copyright covered by Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act - cause of action or no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court - head office is at Bangalore and Branch Office is located in Chennai alone - HELD THAT:- The jurisdiction based on the cause of action and the jurisdiction based on the person of the defendant are two independent categories and they have no relation with each other. A plain reading of Clause-12 of the Letters Patent would show that it is only in cases where a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court that Clause-12 requires a leave to be obtained. The present case is not covered by Clause-12 of the Letters Patent, but a case covered by Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Therefore, the suit is maintainable in this Court. In the present case, when an objection to jurisdiction was raised by way of demurrer and not at the trial, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts as pleaded by the initiator of the impugned proceedings are true. The submission in order to succeed must show that granted those facts the Court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law. In rejecting a plaint on the ground of jurisdiction, the learned single Judge ought to have taken allegations contained in the plaint to be correct. However, the learned single Judge examined the counter affidavit filed by the defendants in which it was claimed that the first plaintiff did not carry on business within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. In our opinion, the learned single Judge is clearly in error in going beyond the statements contained in the plaint. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in Exphar SA vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. [2004 (2) TMI 652 - SUPREME COURT] that for the purpose of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (b) of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C, the averments made in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. The suits are restored to file. Ad interim injunction granted stands revived. The matter is remitted back to the learned single Judge to consider the applications for interim injunction on merits. Consequently, respective appeals are closed.
|