SMITHKLINE FRENCH LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. INDOCO REMEDIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants/plaintiffs filed the application under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to grant leave to sue the respondent in this Court.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows:

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent stated that only if the goods have been sold through a stockist or distributor or dealer of the respondent, then alone it can be construed as a commercial sale on the part of the respondent, so as to give jurisdiction to the court. Nowhere in the plaint it is stated that such a commercial sale is carried on in the City of Madras by the respondent. PERusal of the cause of action paragraph also indicates that no such averment is there to show that the respondent had authorised the stockist or distributor or dealer in the City of Chennai. Hence, it is stated that the sale of the product by any other unauthorised person would not confer any jurisdiction in this court. I am of the view that there is some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.