KRBL LIMITED Vs. P K OVERSEAS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition at hand challenged the order dated 14.12.2014 of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the file of suit (TM No.63/2011) which was instituted by the petitioner (plaintiff) to the extent thereby it was directed that the matter arising out of application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) of the respondent (defendant) seeking a review of order dated 15.05.2013 would be considered after the issue framed by the impugned order on the question of territorial jurisdiction had been addressed.

(2.) The suit in question was filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) on 06.07.2010 under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent injunction, restraint against infringement, passing off, besides other reliefs like rendition of accounts, etc. The respondent (defendant) had moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC taking objections, inter alia, to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit, such objection also touching upon the issue of territorial jurisdiction. In the wake of the said application, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the suit, the prime effect whereof was that the prayer for injunction against passing off was withdrawn. Both the applications were considered by the trial Judge by order dated 15.05.2013. The amendment to the suit was allowed with the observation that the court would have jurisdiction to entertain the prayer that remained, particularly the prayer for injunction against infringement of the trade marks. The case was taken to the stage of arguments on the pending applications for ad interim injunction and its modification.

(3.) The defendant then moved an application for review of the above order dated 15.05.2013, inter alia, again raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It is in that context that the learned trial Judge framed an issue to address the question whether the trial court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Though the order dated 14.02.2014 would not say so expressly, it appears from the tone and tenor of the direction in the order that the trial Judge has presumed that the question of territorial jurisdiction would be a pure question of law.