PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME Vs. MARICO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20.11.2017 in suit O.S.26272/2017 instituted before the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the trial court granted an ex-parte order of injunction against the defendants. Aggrieved by this order, the first defendant has preferred this appeal. It is not necessary to narrate the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs as the argument advanced before me is on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He argues that the suit is between companies. Plaintiffs have sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing, telecasting, communicating, any advertisement, audio, video or visual which disparages or tarnishes its goodwill. The registered office of the appellant is situated at Mumbai. Even the registered offices of other defendants are situated outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. He referred to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') to argue that the suit should have been filed only at a place where defendants carry on business. He refers to explanation part of Section 20 CPC to contend that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India. Therefore, it is his argument that the trial court lacks territorial jurisdiction and for this reason the trial court should not have passed an ex-parte order of temporary injunction. He further argues that before passing the order, the court should have recorded the reasons that it has jurisdiction and because the trial court has not recorded reasons, the order is inherently bad.

(3.) It is his second limb of argument that whenever a court which does not have jurisdiction passes an order ex- parte in nature, it is not necessary for the defendants to approach the very court and file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking to vacate the ex-parte order. Such an order can be directly challenged in an appeal. To garner support for his argument he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [2014 (9) SCC 129], of the Calcutta High Court in the case of THE BENGAL CLUB LIMITED vs SUSANTA KUMAR CHOWDHARY [AIR 2003 CAL 96] and of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of INNOVATIVE PHARMA SURGICALS vs PIGEON MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [AIR 2004 AP 310]. Lastly, he referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.VENKATASUBBIAH NAIDU vs S.CHELLAPPAN AND OTHERS [(2000) 7 SCC 695].