ALLERGAN INC Vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA.No.976/2006 (O.7 R.11 CPC) Defendant has filed this application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Dhodha House Vs. S.K.Maingi 2005 (10) Scale 267.

(2.) The aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court has been considered by two learned Judges of this Court. The first Judgment is in IA.NO.6965/2005 in CS(OS)No.311/2005 (Pfizer Products, Inc. Vs. Rajesh Chopra and Ors.) decided on 8.2.2006 by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and the second Judgment is in IA.No.258/2006 in CS(OS)No.1359/2004 (LG Corporation and Anr. Vs. Intermarket Electroplasters (P) Ltd. and Anr.) decided on 13.2.2006 by Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri. In both the Judgments a view has been taken that in view of the provisions of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred "the said Code") in case part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in the form of sale of the product of the defendant or there is even threat of sale, this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants attempted to persuade this Court to take a different view from that taken by the two other learned Judges of this Court. Learned counsel states that sub-section 2 of Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 has expanded the territorial jurisdiction of a Court and though the same refers to the institution of the suit and would thus apply to a plaintiff, the same principle must also apply to the defendant. Section 134 reads: