Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited & Another
Order Date: 07 October 2025
Case Number: A.No.3024 of 2025 in C.S.No.132 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:110
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
Fact
The dispute centres on an advertising conflict between Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), a well-known consumer goods company, and Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, another large player in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. HUL advertised certain products with the claim that they provide “12 hours protection” or a “protective shield.” Reckitt Benckiser questioned the accuracy and veracity of these claims and complained to the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), which then directed HUL to withdraw or modify its advertisements. These ads were telecast in different languages, including Hindi, Tamil, and English, targeting various regions in India, including Tamil Nadu.
HUL, aggrieved by ASCI's directions (instigated by Reckitt Benckiser), approached the Madras High Court. The legal journey started when HUL received leave (permission) from the Madras High Court to file a suit challenging the ASCI directions. However, Reckitt Benckiser filed the present application seeking to revoke the leave granted to HUL, arguing that Madras High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the relevant cause of action did not arise in its jurisdiction[1].
Procedural Detail
The proceedings began with HUL’s suit in the Madras High Court, after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, contesting ASCI’s decision. Reckitt Benckiser responded by filing an application to revoke this leave, claiming improper jurisdiction. Both sides were heard by the Court. Counsel for Reckitt Benckiser contended that no part of the cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu as all relevant actions—ASCI's order, the expert reports, and the language of the contentious advertisements (primarily Hindi)—were linked to Mumbai or outside Tamil Nadu. On the other side, HUL’s counsel maintained that challenged advertisements were also published and telecast in other languages such as Tamil and English, reaching the audience within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. This, they argued, justified the forum's jurisdiction to decide the issue[1].
Dispute
The dispute was specifically about whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by HUL against Reckitt Benckiser and ASCI. Reckitt Benckiser argued that since the ASCI decision, the expert reports, and the main dissatisfaction related to advertisements in Hindi televised elsewhere, no part of the cause of action happened within Chennai or Tamil Nadu. Therefore, leave granted by the Madras High Court should be revoked, and the matter should be heard elsewhere—particularly Mumbai, where HUL’s registered office is based, and where the ASCI took its decision.
On the contrary, HUL claimed that the cause of action indeed arose at least in part within Tamil Nadu since the same “12 hours protection” claim was being made through advertisements telecast within the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction in Tamil and English. They stressed that jurisdiction could be invoked if even a fractional cause of action arises within that Court’s reach[1].
Reasoning and Judgement
The Court first considered the legal provision—Clause 12 of the Letters Patent—allowing a party to institute proceedings if a part of the cause of action arises within the Court’s jurisdiction. Reckitt Benckiser’s arguments heavily relied on case law such as Madanlal Jalan vs. Madanlal and Ors. (AIR 1949 Cal 495), emphasizing the doctrine of forum conveniens and contesting so-called “forum shopping.” They also cited the Full Bench judgement in Ms. Duro Flex Pvt. Limited vs. Ms. Duroflex Sittings System (2014 5 LW 673), which clarified that merely having a registry at a particular place does not automatically confer jurisdiction: the factual bundle leading to the cause of action is the test.
Additionally, reference was made to a Supreme Court decision, Ahmed Abdulla Ahmed Al Ghurair vs. Star Health Allied Insurance Co., Ltd. (2019 13 SCC 259), which pointed out that granting leave under Clause 12 is discretionary, to be exercised according to fairness and convenience of the parties, i.e., applying the principle of forum conveniens.
HUL’s response was that the pleadings in the plaint alone should fix jurisdiction for the present stage. They highlighted that the 12 hours claim was not restricted to Hindi—similar advertisements ran in Tamil and English within the State of Tamil Nadu, falling squarely inside the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction. They also pointed out that the Court had granted leave after acknowledging these averments and that the impugned ASCI order affected their ability to advertise in Tamil Nadu. Citing the decision of the Division Bench in O.S.A.Nos.242 & 243 of 2023, it was contended that when a part of the cause of action occurs within the Court's territory, the Court can assume jurisdiction[1].
Upon weighing the submissions, the Judge observed that (1) the advertisements in question were not limited to Hindi or to areas outside Tamil Nadu; (2) “12 hours protection” claims were indeed published in different languages and telecast in Tamil Nadu as well; and (3) as a consequence, the ASCI’s order’s effect was not geographically restricted—it directly impacted HUL’s right to advertise within the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, a part of the cause of action, as required by law, had clearly arisen within this jurisdiction[1].
The Court held that the jurisdiction question cannot be decided only on the defendant’s preferred forum or on where corporate offices are situated, but must consider the impact of the impugned action and the presence of the cause of action. The reasoning clearly spelled out that under Clause 12, if any part of the sequence of facts giving rise to the grievance happened within the Court’s territory (including, as here, through telecast and effect of advertisements), then the Court can validly grant leave and entertain the suit.
Decision
The Madras High Court upheld its own jurisdiction, refusing to revoke the leave earlier granted to HUL. It held that the advertisements and resultant harm occurred in Tamil Nadu as well, fulfilling the legal threshold for part of the cause of action within its purview. Consequently, the application seeking revocation of leave was dismissed. However, the Court made no order as to costs, keeping the focus on access to justice and fairness[1].
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
