Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Versus Sanjay Dalia & Anr.

2015 (7) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT

Jurisdiction of High Court - Infringement of the Trademark / Copyright - Interpretation of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - Interpretation of section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Place of initiation of suit Delhi vs Mumbai - Head office situated at Mumbai while branch office at Delhi - Held that:- In our opinion, the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner. No doubt about it that a suit ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held that if the cause of action has arisen at a place where the Plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, that place is not only the appropriate but also the only place where a suit can be instituted ventilating a grievance of violation of copyright, (and since the provisions are similar) to an infringement of the trademark. In holding so we are not ignoring the provisions of either the Copyright Act or the Trade Marks Act; we are only impar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dv.,Ms. Kaveeta Wadia,Adv. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10643-10644 OF 2010 JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP[C] No.8253 of 2013. 2. In the appeals, the question arising for consideration is as to the interpretation of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 with regard to the place where a suit can be instituted by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff/appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 10643-44/2010 had filed a suit praying for relief against defendant No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, it is not disputed that the plaintiff's Head Office is situated at Mumbai. The objection was raised by the defendant with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Delhi. The single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have upheld the objection and held that the suit should have been filed in the facts of the case, in the court at Mumbai. Hence, the impugned order has been questioned in the appeals. 5. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP [C] No. 8253/2013 - (Advance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to indicate how the court at Delhi would have the jurisdiction. The magazine is sold and circulated to the subscribers at Delhi. The application seeking amendment has also been dismissed by the High Court as even if allowed, amended pleadings would not confer jurisdiction upon the court. Merely situation of branch office is not enough as no cause of action as per the plaint, has arisen in Delhi. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal and se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en conferred a right to file a suit where it carries on its business. That cannot be whittled down by combining with it the cause of action. The impediment of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have no co-relation to the cause of action and suit can be filed where plaintiff resides or carries on his business or personally works for gain. The interpretation made by the High Court is contrary to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) SCC 595] and various other decisions of the High Court of Delhi viz., Smithkline Beecham & Anr. v. Sunil Singhi & Anr. [2000 (1) PTC 321 (Del.)], Caterpillar Inc. v. Kailash Nichani & Ors. [2002 (24) PTC 405 (Del.)], Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Allergan Inc. [132 (2006) Delhi Law Times 641] to contend that under the aforesaid provisions accrual of cause of action wholly or in part is not necessary at a place where the plaintiff chooses to file a suit where he is carrying on busin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

voke the doctrine of reading down the provisions. Section 62 of the Copyright Act is a special legislation and confers a special right on the plaintiff where it carries on business or resides. Reading the Explanation to section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure into section 62 will do violence to the Copyright Act. The requirement of cause of action or Explanation as to the corporation of Section 20 C.P.C. cannot be added to the aforesaid provisions. Facts of few cases cannot be considered so as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hand, on behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that abuse of provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act cannot be permitted at the hands of multi-national corporations to harass the defendant/s. With respect to the suit being filed by the Corporation, section 20 is not inapplicable. Carrying on business' cannot be defined subjectively. Reliance has been placed upon Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. Prasad Trading Co. [1991 (4) SCC 270]. The objec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erpretation of provisions must be such so as to avoid hardship and absurdity. The decisions relied upon by the appellants have been sought to be distinguished. 9. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains the provisions under section 20 with respect to institution of the suits where defendant resides or cause of action arose. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus : "Section 20 - Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. - Subject to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. [Explanation]. : A 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 also a subordinate office, at such place." .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

may be instituted in the local court where the person instituting the proceedings ordinarily resides, carries on business etc. Clause 61 of the Report of the said Committee is extracted below : "Clause 61 (Original clause 65). -Sub-clause (2) of the original clause 65 has been omitted and replaced by a new sub-clause. The Committee feels that the provisions of the original sub-clause (2) would virtually make registration of copyright compulsory and would be an undue restriction on the owner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jurisdiction the person instituting the proceedings ordinarily resides, carries on business, etc." (emphasis supplied by us) Section 62 of the Copyright Act is extracted below : "62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter. - (1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain." Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act is also extracted below : "134. Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court. - (1) No suit- (a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or (b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or (c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-section (2), "person" includes the registered proprietor and the registered user." 11. Following portion of the Parliamentary Debates as to Copyright Act has been relied upon : "Shri P. Trikamdas: Ordinarily it should fall withi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the main in the place where the author resides or where the first copy was published. Dr. Raghubir Sinh: So you agree to that? Shri P. Trikamdas: Yes, and I am obliged to you for asking me that question. Dr. Raghubir Sinh: Does Mr. Masani also approve of it? Shri Masani : Yes. Shri P. Trikamdas: It is desirable, also because it may act as a deterrent on the infringer when he knows that he may have to go a few hundred miles off to a High Court where the author lives or where the book got publish .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from such a place also as is being done in the instant cases. In our opinion, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure" does not oust the applicability of the provisions of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is clear that additional remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is residing or carrying on business etc., as the case may be. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to fil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ipal 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. 13. Learned author Mulla in the Code of Civil Procedure, 18 th Edn., has observed that under clauses (a) to (c) of section 20, plaintiff has a choice of forum to institute a s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e has to be the place of the filing of the suit and not the principal place of business. Ordinarily the suit has to be filed at the place where there is principal place of business of the corporation. 14. Corporation' in the Explanation would mean not only the statutory corporation but companies registered under the Companies Act, as held by this Court in Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. Prasad Trading Co. etc. [1991 (4) SCC 270] and New Moga Transport Co., through its Proprietor v. United Ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

v. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co. (1889) 23 QBD 285. A company may have subordinate or branch offices in fifty different jurisdictions and it may be sued in any one of such jurisdictions in respect of a cause of action arising there, has been held in Peoples' Insurance Co. v. Benoy Bhushan [AIR 1943 Cal. 190]; Home Insurance Co. v. Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. [AIR 1952 Punj. 142]; and Prag Oil Mils Depot v. Transport Corpn. of India [AIR 1978 Ori. 167]. 15. Accrual of cause of action is a sine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2001 SC 416]. Thus, a plaintiff can also file a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. 16. On a due and anxious consideration of the provisions contained in section 20 of the CPC, section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and the object with which the latter provisions have been enacted, it is clear that if a cause of action has arisen wholly or in part, where .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as to be read subject to certain restrictions, such as in case plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a particular place/having its head office and at such place cause of action has also arisen wholly or in part, plaintiff cannot ignore such a place under the guise that he is carrying on business at other far flung places also. The very intendment of the insertion of provision in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is the convenience of the plaintiff. The rule of convenience of the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dings "because the court in which proceedings are to be instituted is at a considerable distance from the place of their ordinary residence". The impediment created to the plaintiff by section 20 C.P.C. of going to a place where it was not having ordinary residence or principal place of business was sought to be removed by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act. Where the Corporation is having ordinary residence/principal place of business and c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cause of action has arisen. Such interpretation would cause great harm and would be juxtaposed to the very legislative intendment of the provisions so enacted. 18. In our opinion, in a case where cause of action has arisen at a place where the plaintiff is residing or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain would oust the jurisdiction of other place where the cause of action has not arisen though .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. We agree to the aforesaid extent the impediment imposed under section 20 of the CPC to a plaintiff to institute a suit in a court where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises, has been removed. But the right is subject to the rider in case plaintiff resides or has its principal place of business/carries on business or personally works for gain at a place where cause of action has also arisen, suit should be filed at that place not at .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, at the same time, as the provision providing for an additional forum, cannot be interpreted in the manner that it has authorised the plaintiff to institute a suit at a different place other than the place where he is ordinarily residing or having principal office and incidentally where the cause of action wholly or in part has also arisen. The impugned judgments, in our considered view, do not take away the additional forum and fundamental basis of conferring the right and advantage to the aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on suggested by the appellant is accepted, several mischiefs may result, intention is that the plaintiff should not go to far flung places than that of residence or where he carries on business or works for gain in order to deprive defendant a remedy and harass him by dragging to distant place. It is settled proposition of law that the interpretation of the provisions has to be such which prevents mischief. The said principle was explained in Heydon's case [76 ER 637]. According to the misch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions the most firmly established rule for construction of such words "of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law)" is the rule laid down in Heydon's case (76 ER 637) which has "now attained the status of a classic [Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan AIR 1957 SC 907]. The rule which is also known as purposive construction' or mischief rule' [Anderto .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 661] by S.R. DAS, CJI as follows: "It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when Heydon's case (supra) was decided that for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st - What was the common law before the making of the Act? 2nd - What was the mischief and defect for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he makers of the Act, pro bono publico. [Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar (supra)]." 23. Considering the first aspect of aforesaid principle, the common law which was existing before the provisions of law were passed was section 20 of the CPC. It did not provide for the plaintiff to institute a suit except in accordance with the provisions contained in section 20. The defect in existing law was inconvenience/deterrence caused to the authors suffering from financial constraints on accou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le a suit at the aforesaid places. But if they were residing or carrying on business or personally worked for gain already at such place, where cause of action has arisen, wholly or in part, the said provisions have not provided additional remedy to them to file a suit at a different place. The said provisions never intended to operate in that field. The operation of the provisions was limited and their objective was clearly to enable the plaintiff to file a suit at the place where he is ordinar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fact that the plaintiff/corporation is carrying on business through branch or otherwise at such other place also. If such an interpretation is permitted, as rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, the abuse of the provision will take place. Corporations and big conglomerates etc. might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country. Interpretation otherwise would permit them to institute infringement proceedings at a far flung place and at unconnected place as compared to a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erritorial jurisdiction to entertain it. 24. The avoidance of counter mischief to the defendant is also necessary while giving the remedy to the plaintiff under the provisions in question. It was never visualised by the law makers that both the parties would be made to travel to a distant place in spite of the fact that the plaintiff has a remedy of suing at the place where the cause of action has arisen where he is having head office/carrying on business etc. The provisions of the Copyright Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Debate was not to enable plaintiff to take defendant to farther place, leaving behind his place of residence/business etc. The right to remedy given is not unbriddled and is subject to the prevention of abuse of the aforesaid provisions, as discussed above. Parliament never intended that the subject provisions to be abused by the plaintiff by instituting suit in wholly unconnected jurisdiction. In the instant cases, as the principal place of business is at Mumbai the cause of action is also at .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also submitted that Heydon's rule is not applicable where the words of the statute are clear. Reliance has been placed on M/s. Hiralal Rattanlal etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Anr. etc. [1973 (1) SCC 216] in which it has been observed that when the provision is unambiguous and if from the provision legislative intent is clear, the court need not call into aid the other rule of construction of statutes such as that of mischief'. However, we opine, when two interpretations are possible, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s clear, the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language used. While doing so, what has been said as also what has not been said, has to be noted. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition. However, the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature is clear which is to the otherwise. 27. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation in section 318 in Part XXI has mentioned that strict construction may be avoided or at least reduced by limiting the remedy where a coun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ption that an absurd' result is not intended, of which the present section depicts one aspect, see Code s.312. Mischief As to the mischief' to which an enactment is directed see Code s.289. Counter-mischief Clearly it would be absurd to suppose that Parliament intended to abolish one mischief only at the cost of establishing another which is just as bad, or even worse. Many legal rules have adverse side-effects, and the policy of the law is to discard possible rules whose disadvantages o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ese is the loss of freedom that accompanies a regulatory measure. Such consequences are manifest, and must be treated as part of Parliament's intention. Strict construction Where a counter-mischief would arise if the remedy provided by the Act were construed widely, the court may avoid or at least reduce it by limiting the remedy. Example 318.2 Section 1 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 (repealed) empowered the county court to make orders excluding a violent husb .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that one of the opposing constructions of the enactment, if adopted, would create a mischief of its own. It is not unusual for a construction contended for by one of the parties to have as one of its consequences the infliction of a serious injustice on the other party. The prospect of this would constitute a negative factor in weighing the applicability of the construction in question. The court also has in mind the consequences for the public welfare. xxxxx Often it is reasonable to assume tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

: "the Court seeks to avoid a construction that cures the mischief the enactment was designed to remedy only at the cost of setting up a disproportionate counter-mischief since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Sometimes there are overriding reasons for applying such a construction, for example, where the Parliament really intended it or a literal meaning is too strong." We find no overriding reasons to apply construction solicited by the appellants as that was nev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

served that regard be had to the subject and object of the Act. The court's effort is to harmonise the words of the statute with the subject of enactment and the object the Legislature has in view. When two interpretations are feasible, the court will prefer the one which advances the remedy and suppresses the mischief as envisioned. The relevant portion is extracted below : "As stated earlier (Chapter 1, title 2 Intention of the Legislature', text and notes 57 to 69, pages 14 to 17 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353, p.356 ...] The courts have declined "to be bound by the letter, when it frustrates the patent purposes of the statute". [Cabell v. Markham, 148 F 2d 737 92nd cir 1945), (Judge Learned Hand). In the words of SHAH, J.: "It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute, and whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

out so long as interpretative possibility permits. (Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P.T. Menghani, AIR 1977 SC 1569, pp. 1575, 1576...]. The object oriented approach, however, cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain language used by rewriting the section or substituting words in place of the actual words used by the Legislature. [CIT v. Budhraja and Company, AIR 1993 SC 2529, p. 2535]. Having regard to the object of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 to implement the Bhood .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

v. P.T. Menghani [1977 (2) SCC 835], it has been observed that purposive interpretation may be made having regard to the object of the provisions and to avoid any obvious lacuna. 32. The learned author Justice G.P. Singh in Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn. has also observed that it is the court's duty to avoid hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly while selecting out of different interpretations. The doctrine must be applied with great care and in case absurd inconv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bradfield Rural District Council, (1949) 1 All ER 381, p. 384] as it may be presumed "that the Legislature should have used the word in that interpretation which least offends our sense of justice". [Simms v. Registrar of Probates, (1900) AC 323, p. 335 CPC] If the grammatical construction leads to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, it may be departed from so as to avoid that absurdity, and inconsistency. [Grey v. Pearson, (1857) 6 HLC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence." [Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830]."' xxxxx "Consideration of hardship, injustice or absurdity as avoiding a particular construction is a rule which must be applied with great care. "The argument ab inconvenienti", said LORD MOULTON, "is one which requires to be used with great caution". [Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors, (1913) AC 107]. Explaining why great cauti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Act, we can satisfy ourselves that the words cannot have been used in the sense to which the argument points". [Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors, (1913) AC 107]. According to BRETT, L.J., the inconvenience necessitating a departure from the ordinary sense of the words should not only be great but should also be what he calls an "absurd inconvenience". Moreover, individual cases of hardship or injustice have no bearing for rejecting the natural construction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s hardly any reason to depart from the normal rule to relieve the supposed hardship or injustice in such cases. [Lucy v. Henleys Telegraph Works, (1969) 3 All ER 456]. "It is the duty of all courts of justice", said LORD CAMPBELL, "to take care for the general good of the community, that hard cases do not make bad law". [East India Company v. Odichurn Paul, 7 Moo PC 85]. 'Absurdity' according to WILLES, J., should be understood "in the same sense as repugnance th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

compared with another may be and very often is, of assistance to the court in choosing between two possible meanings of ambiguous words, it is a doctrine which must be applied with great care, remembering that judges may be fallible in this question of an absurdity and in any event it must not be applied so as to result in twisting language into a meaning which it cannot bear. It is a doctrine which must not be used to re-write the language in a way different from that in which it was originall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onstruction which better serves the ends of fairness and justice will be accepted, but otherwise it is for the Legislature in forming its policy to consider these elements. [IRC v. Mutual Investment Co. (1966) 3 All ER 265]. If no alternative construction is open, the court cannot ignore a statutory provision "to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation; a statute has to be given effect to whether the court likes it or not". [Martin Burn Ltd. v. Calcutta Corpor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to inadvertence. [Kariapper v. Wijesinha, (1967) 3 All ER 485]. The Courts should as far as possible avoid a construction which results in anomalies. [N.T.Veluswami Thevar v. G.Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422]." 33. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation' has mentioned law to same effect under section 312 and has observed that there is a presumption that absurd result is not intended and in section 314 it has been observed that the court has to avoid an inconvenient result while interpreting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ken recourse in certain cases. 34. This Court in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010 (1) SCC 135] has also laid down law to the same effect and has discussed the term branch office' used in section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the context of cause of action. Section 17(2) of the said Act reads thus : "17(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite partie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.]" This Court while interpreting the provision held that the term branch office' as used in the amended section 17(2)(b) has to be interpreted to mean only that branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Thus, the court departed from the plain and literal mean .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323] so as to contend that the court cannot usurp the legislative intention and cannot supply omissions to a statute. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition. However, we are simply interpreting the provisions considering the object of the Act. 36. Respondents have placed reliance on Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. Prasad Trading Co. etc. [1991 (4) SCC 270] in which this Court has considered the provisions of section 20 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arises, the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) together with the first part of the Explanation would have completely achieved the purpose. Indeed the effect would have been wider. The suit could have been instituted at the place of the principal office because of the situation of such office (whether or not any actual business was carried on there). Alternatively, a suit could have been instituted at the place where the cause of action arose under clause (c) (irrespective of whether the cor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a cause of action (even though the principal office of the corporation is not located there) so long as there is a subordinate office of the corporation situated at such place. The linking together of the place where the cause of action arises with the place where a subordinate office is located clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was that, in the case of a corporation, for the purposes of clause (a), the location of the subordinate office, within the local limits of which a cau .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has a subordinate office, also at such place". 13. As far as we can see the interpretation which we have placed on this section does not create any practical or undue difficulties or disadvantage either to the plaintiff or a defendant corporation. It is true that, normally, under clauses (a) to (c), the plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to the place of residence or business of the corporation and ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

here because it does not carry on business at that place. It would be a great hardship if, in spite of the corporation having a subordinate office at the place where the cause of action arises (with which in all probability the plaintiff has had dealings), such plaintiff is to be compelled to travel to the place where the corporation has its principal place. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff; and since the corporation has an office at such place, it will also be under no disadvant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h plaintiff is compelled to travel where the corporation has its principal office. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff and the corporation has an office at such place, will also be under no disadvantage. 37. Under clauses (a) to (c) of section 20 CPC, a plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to a place of business or residence of the defendant and can file a suit where the cause of action arises. The intendment of the Explanation has also been taken into consi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that where the corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it does not carry on business at that place. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia refer to a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia "carries on business". Clause (c) on the other hand refers to a court within the local limits of wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event, the court within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the company is situate will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not actually be carrying on business at that place, it will be deemed to carry on business at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. The latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

;in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office". 38. In Exphar SA (supra), this Court had considered the provisions contained in section 62 of the Copyright Act and has observed that the word include' shows that the jurisdiction for the purpose of section 62 is wider than that of the court as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court has laid down thus: "12. We would like to emphasise the word "include". .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ituated at a considerable distance from the place of their ordinary residence. The Committee feels that this impediment should be removed and the new sub-clause (2) accordingly provides that infringement proceedings may be instituted in the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person instituting the proceedings ordinarily resides, carries on business etc." 13. It is, therefore, clear that the object and reason for the introduction of sub-section (2) of Section 62 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ver and above the "normal" grounds as laid down in Section 20 of the Code." This Court held therein that the Delhi court had jurisdiction since the plaintiff had averred that it has its registered office in Delhi and seize and desist notice was also received by the appellants at Delhi. The decision in Exphar SA (supra) does not oust the applicability of the provisions of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure as this Court has laid down that section 62 has prescribed an additio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rade Marks Act, 1999 was also considered. This Court has laid down that composite suit may be maintainable under the Copyright Act and the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 but that may not be relevant for the purpose of determining the question of a forum where a suit can be instituted. In case the court is not having jurisdiction under one of the Acts, merely by combining the causes of action, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the court. In that context, this Court has observed thus : &q .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain." Admittedly, no such additional forum had been created in terms of the provisions of the 1958 Act. xxxxx 44. A cause of action in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Parliament. The intention of the Parliament in not providing for an additional forum in relation to the violation of the 1958 Act is, therefore, clear and explicit. The Par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are that the plaintiff must actually and voluntarily reside to carry on business or personally work for gain. xxxxx 47. A corporation in view of Explanation appended to Section 20 of the Code would be deemed to be carrying on business inter alia at a place where it has a subordinate office. Only because, its goods are being sold at a place would thus evidently not mean that it carries a business at that place." (emphasis supplied by us) In Dhodha House (supra), the question which is posed b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a), the precise question which is before us, was not involved in the aforesaid case. A decision is not to be construed like a statute nor by inferential process it can be assumed that this Court has decided the question also which is before this Court in the instant cases. 40. This Court in Paragon Rubber Industries & Ors. v. Pragathi Rubber Mills & Ors. [2014 (57) PTC 1(SC)] held that a composite suit would not be maintainable unless the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC can be exercised only in the event when the court has otherwise jurisdiction in respect of the cause of action wherefor the action has been brought. This Court has observed with respect to section 62 of the Copyright Act thus : "32. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt by a composite suit? A composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored. A composite suit within the provisions of the 1957 Act as considered in Dhodha House (supra), therefore, would mean the suit which is founded on infringement of a copyright and wherein the incidental power of the court is requ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pect whereof it has no jurisdiction territorial or otherwise. The decision in Dabur India (supra) is of no help to the cause espoused by the appellants. 42. Now, we advert to various decisions of High Courts: (a) The decision of the Delhi High Court in Smithkline Beecham (supra) has been relied upon. As the registered office was situated in Delhi, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to institute a suit in Delhi court and the questions of cause of action etc. did not come up for conside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions contained in section 20(c) of the CPC as the defendant is selling the offending drug in Delhi. (d) In Ford Motor Co. & Anr. v. C.R. Borman & Anr. [2008 (38) PTC 76 (Del.)], Delhi High Court considered that the plaintiff carried on the business in commercial quantities in Delhi and have authorised agents also. The pleadings of plaintiff have to be taken into consideration at the time of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Ru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urisdiction was invoked on the ground that the defendants are voluntarily residing and carrying on business at Delhi. The plaintiff has branch office at Delhi and plaintiff's authorised partner was offering the products from its office at Delhi. The judgment was delivered considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C. taking the plaint averments to be correct. (f) In Wipro Ltd. & Anr. v. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Ltd. & Ors. [2008 (37) PTC 269 Mad.], the High Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Trade Marks Act conferred upon the plaintiff the benefit of bringing an action stipulated therein notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. (h) In the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. & Anr. v. Shree Balaji Cement Industries & Ors. [2014 (58) PTC 1 (Bom.)], the High Court held that it has the jurisdiction as the plaintiff carries on business within the jurisdiction of the court and plaintiff No.1 has registered office and plaintiff No.2 has corpo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o wide so as to open it to be misused, it has to be subject to object of the Act as explained above. 43. Coming to submission that vires of Section 62 has not been questioned. There is no doubt about it that the challenge to the vires of section 62 has not been made. However, the question is that of interpretation and not that of vires of the provisions which has been considered by us. There will be no violence to section 62 of Copyright Act and section 134 of Trade Marks Act by the interpretati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rwise, we have considered each and every decision threadbare which has been referred to us. It cannot be said that the precise question involved in the cases before us was involved in the aforesaid decisions or came up for consideration. In Dhodha House (supra) also, the question posed for consideration was different and the observations made therein are not supporting the cause raised on behalf of the appellants. We are not taking a view contrary to any of the said decisions of this Court. Thus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version