SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC Vs. SUNIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of a present Objection, the Defendant No.2 has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its Trademark and Copyright and also for Passing-Off- The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Trade Mark PANADOL and PANADOL EXTRA, which is admittedly an invented word. It has been registered in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Marks Act) with effect from 21/10/1982 in favour of the Plaintiff. On 7/9/1999 the following ex parte ad interim orders were granted:

(2.) The Defendant No.2 has filed I.As. 550-551/2000 for vacation of these orders under Order XXXIX Rule 4;and for the return of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Civil Procedure Code'). The Defendants have chosen not to file a Reply to the Plaintiffs application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2Civil Procedure Code, on which the extracted injunction has been granted. I shall instead treat the application for vacation of the injunction as a reply to the Plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. since it is in the interests of Justice that all applications which can be disposed off on the basis of arguments addressed at the Bar should be so done. Piecemeal adjudication, at the convenience of any party, should be avoided due to the drastic paucity of time available to the Court.

(3.) Mr. H.A. Ahmadi, Learned Counsel for the Defendants, has contended that since the averments in the Plaint are that the cause of action arose in June 1999 when the Plaintiff received information that the Defendants were selling the infringing goods in Uganda,the suit should not be entertained and tried in Delhi or any other Court in India. He argued that Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not permit the dispute to be adjudicated in Delhi especially since the Plaintiffs have no business activity in this city. The territorial Jurisdiction could only be invoked if the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The Plaint should have specifically stated that the Defendants are manufacturing the offending drug in Mumbai. A reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act would dispel any doubt that the Act has no extra territorial application. Thus If the cause of action did not arise In India the Plaint called to be returned to the Plaintiffs for filing In a court of competent jurisdiction.