BASHA Vs. SHAIK HYDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal, against the injunction granted in O.S. No. 89 of 1982, by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, vide order dated 3.4.1982. Respondent is a manufacturer of "Beedi" called by its trade name "Nehru Beedi"; the production is done at Anekal, in Bangalore District, since February 1966. It is claimed that the commodity is very popular and has gained tremendous "goodwill". Plaintiff has obtained the requisite licence from the competent authorities. In January 1982, the plaintiff came across with the "Beedi" with similar trade name, as his, and in same type of wrapper. On enquiry, he got the information that the commodity is manufactured by the defendant, who was manufacturing Beedis under the trade name "Maharaja Beedi". The name, wrapper and size of bundle was very much identical, customers could easily be deceived. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit for a passing off action. In the suit, he prayed for injunction, restraining the defendant from marketing his Beedis under the trade name 'Nehru Beedis'. The defendant contested the suit; among other grounds, it is urged that court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant also filed his objections to the interim order of injunction. Court below, after hearing the parties, has made the injunction absolute. The effect of the "injunction order is that the defendant is prohibited from manufacturing Beedis in the trade name of 'Nehru Beedis' and marketing them in Bangalore, Anekal and Hosur (Tamilnadu). It is undisputed that plaintiffs trade mark is not registered.

(2.) In this appeal, Mr, Tarakaram, made two submissions: 1) Since the plaintiff's product is manufactured in Anekal and in the body of the plaint he has not asserted about his market in Bangalore, he is not entitled for injunction regarding the Bangalore market; 2) That the city Civil Court, Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant injunction.

(3.) So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the said issue was not raised before the trial court and the impugned order is silent about this question. However prima facie since the defendant resides and manufactures the product in Bangalore, it. cannot be said that Court has no jurisdiction. Further plaintiff's suit is for injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing and merchandising the "Nehru Beedi" and the competent court is the District court. Plaintiff has a proprietory right in the "Mark", the good-will and reputation of his product is at shake. Therefore the cause of action arises wherever the goods are sold or likely to be sold. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention that the court below had no jurisdiction.