Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 1059 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking to assail the territorial jurisdiction of this Court invoked by the original writ petitioner - doctrine of forum conveniens - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the first respondent’s business is located at Mumbai. This gave rise to the first respondent filing applications under the Patents Act in the Office of the Registrar of Patents at Mumbai, and the patents of the first respondent were registered at Mumbai. It is in fact the petitioner which was aggrieved by the registration of the patents in favour of the first respondent and sought revocation of the patents by initiating proceedings before the Gujarat High Court. In those proceedings, the first respondent took an objection about the jurisdiction of that Court. The first respondent also initiated criminal proceedings before the X Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Mumbai. He had also filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which he subsequently withdrew on account of other reasons. The petitioner was desirous of an early adjudication on the issue of the applications filed for revocation of patents. The parties thus joined together to have the matter heard at Chennai, which was the Principal Seat of the IPAB, on account of time being at the disposal of the IPAB. It is in this context that the hearing was held by the IPAB at Chennai and the final order was passed at Chennai and not at Mumbai. In our view, this was an arrangement only for convenience of hearing - Merely because both the parties having agreed to get the matter heard early, made arrangements through their counsel to attend the hearings at Chennai being the Principal Seat of the IPAB, would not make a difference and it is a fit case where the principle of forum conveniens should be invoked and the parties be put to adjudication before the High Court of Bombay, rather than this Court. The present factual matrix is not even where it is the situs of the appellate authority in question. The Bench of the appellate authority was actually located at Mumbai and thus, only for convenience of hearing for certain days were sittings held at Chennai. This is a distinct factor, even though the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Sterling Agro’s case [2012 (6) TMI 76 - DELHI HIGH COURT - LB] had in fact observed that an order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of the cause of action, yet the same may not be a singular factor, and the High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The mere fact that hearing was held at Chennai rather than at Mumbai on account of a given inadequacy of sittings at Mumbai by the IPAB Circuit Bench at Mumbai, thus would not imply that this Court should necessarily exercise the jurisdiction. Application allowed.
|