Astral Ltd, with its principal office in Ahmedabad and a subordinate sales and marketing office in Delhi, filed a suit in Delhi High Court against M/s Ajay Enterprises, based in Udaipur, Rajasthan, alleging infringement and passing off of its trademark 'ASTRAL'. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing no cause of action in Delhi and that the suit should be in Ahmedabad, citing no evidence of sales in Delhi and relying on Supreme Court precedents like K. Narayanan v. S. Murali. The plaintiff countered that the defendant's trademark application and admissions in opposition proceedings under Rule 45 of Trade Mark Rules, claiming pan-India availability including Delhi, created part cause of action there. The court examined Sections 20 CPC and 134 Trade Marks Act, interpreting the Explanation to Section 20 as deeming a corporation to carry on business at a subordinate office if cause of action arises there, and held that where cause of action partly arises at both principal and subordinate office locations, courts at both have jurisdiction, as Section 134 provides an additional forum for plaintiff convenience without mutual exclusion. Referencing Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, the court found the defendant's nationwide promotion admission binding, establishing part cause of action in Delhi, and dismissed the application, confirming jurisdiction.
- Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not oust the applicability of Section 20 CPC and provides an additional remedy to the plaintiff to file a suit where it resides or carries on business (Para 19).
- Under the Explanation to Section 20 CPC, a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its principal office, or at a subordinate office in respect of a cause of action arising there (Para 20).
- The deeming provision in the Explanation to Section 20 CPC is read into Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to determine where the plaintiff carries on business (Para 21).
- Where part cause of action arises at both the principal and subordinate offices of the plaintiff, courts at both locations have territorial jurisdiction, as these places are not mutually exclusive (Paras 23-27).
- When cause of action arises partly at the subordinate office location, that place is deemed where the plaintiff carries on business, enabling suit institution there under Section 134 Trade Marks Act read with Section 20 CPC (Paras 28-30).
Case Title: Astral Ltd Vs Ajay Enterprises Order date: 24.12.2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 540/2024 Neutral Citation: Not available Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
