TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. 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 be manufacturing match boxes for the last about five years under the trade mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion 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 all the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in support of the impugned judgment are not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is set aside. The matter is remanded for trial of the suit in accordance with law. Let the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
