TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bharwani District, where the appellant having subordinate office at Bhopal, but principal office at Bengaluru is not a ground to file a suit in Bengaluru. Appeal dismissed. - Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1941 Of 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2018 - Mr. L. Narayana Swamy, J. Sri. Gururaj D.M. For The Appellant. Sri. Keerti Kumar D. Naik For The Respondent. ORDER Appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No.25327/2015 on the file of 4th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21)and suit was for injunction and accounts. 2. The appellant submitted that respondent/defendant had filed I.A. No.II under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for return of plaint to the plaintiff to file before the jurisdictional court. The Court below by its order dated 04.03.2016 allowed I.A. No.II filed by defendant and directed the office to return plaint to the plaintiff with a direction to present the same before the proper jurisdictional District court of Madhya Pradesh State. Hence, appellant challenged the said order by filing this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case the 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, the 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 the Trade Marks Act is the convenience of the plaintiff. The rule of convenience of the parties has been given a statutory expression in Section 20 CPC as well. The interpretation of provisions has to be such which prevents the mischief of causing inconvenience to the parties. 52. 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 can be filed by the plaintiff at a place where he is residing or carrying on business or personally works for gain. He need not travel to file a suit to a place where the defendant is residing or cause of action wholly or in part arises. However, if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business, etc., at a place where the cause of action, wholly or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e need not travel to file a suit to a place where the defendant is residing or cause of action wholly or in part arises. However, if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business, etc., at a place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place, as discussed above. 9. Learned counsel also referred the judgment of the Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) 494/2015 CM 17816/2016 in the case of Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey and others and referred para No.13. 13. Under these provisions four situations can be contemplated in the context of the plaintiff being a corporation (which 10includes a company). First of all, is the case where the plaintiff has a sole office. In such a case, even if the cause of action has arisen at a different place, the plaintiff can institute a suit at the place of the sole office. Next is the case where the plaintiff has principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and the cause of action has arisen at the place of the principal office. In such a case, the plaintiff may sue at the place of the principal office. In such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant and obtained bill for having purchased the same. The agreement between the parties has taken place at Bengaluru and also Head Office of the plaintiff situated at Bengaluru.Under these circumstances, the Court committed an error by allowing the application for retuning the plaint. No doubt,agreement between the parties had taken place at Bengaluru and Head Office of the plaintiff is at Bengaluru but the cause of action has arisen at Bharwani District of Madhya Pradesh. When that is the case, as per Section 20 of CPC, plaintiff has got cause to file suit either at Bengaluru or where the cause of action has arisen. 14. Further, Section 20 of CPC explains that 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. As per this explanation the plaintiff could have filed a suit at the subordinate office or place where the cause of action has arisen or place where the defendant is carrying on business. 15. Under Section 134 of TM Act, enables the appellant to file a suit in District courts within the local l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got subordinate office at Bhopal at Madhya Pradesh that itself is sufficient for the purrpose of jurisdiction in Madhya Pradesh. In addition to that, at Para No.19 of the plaint he has specifically pleaded that defendant is located and carrying on business in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This is sufficient to believe that appellant is carrying on business in the State of Madhya Pradesh though he has stated that he has got subordinate office at Bhopal that is sufficient for the purpose of jurisdiction. In the light of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Radico Khaitan Ltd., Vs. Nakshatra Distrilleries and Breweries Limited and Another, it has been held by Hon ble Delhi High Court, the judiciary of the State is one and the division of the territorial jurisdiction into districts is the matter of administrative convenience. That means having office at Bhopal, the cause of action has taken place there and secondly the parties have entered into agreement at Bengaluru and the principal office is also situated at Bengaluru that is not a deciding factor under Section 134 of TM Act. 18. Section 134 of the TM Act has been discussed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
