PICCADILY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. ASHOK JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While I.A.No.5710/2016 has been filed in CS(COMM) No.76/2015 by defendant nos. 4 and 5 under Order 7, Rule 10 , CPC, learned counsel for the defendants in CS(OS) No.2326/2015 submitted that the plaint was liable to be returned in accordance with the judgment rendered in an identical case titled as Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Narwal and Anr. in CS(OS) No.2550/2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for the defendants in both the suits stated that the plaintiff had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that defendants have their registered offices in Delhi. They further stated that the plaintiff had wrongly claimed that as decisions regarding manufacturing and marketing of the products of the defendants had been taken at the registered offices of the defendants in Delhi, hence this Court had jurisdiction to entertain or try the present suits. They also stated that as the plaintiff had no registered trademark, no suit for infringement of trademark lie.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff had no reason to file the present suits in Delhi when the plaintiff admittedly was based in Karnal, Haryana and was carrying on its alleged business activities pertaining to the alleged trademark in Haryana only. They stated that the defendants had never done any business in Delhi under the impugned trademark. They emphasised that the defendants had their distillery units in Haryana. Hence, according to them, this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits.