Brief Introductory Head Note
The case MTS Papers India Limited v. Spento Papers India LLP, FAO (COMM) 214/2025, decided on 17 November 2025 by the High Court of Delhi, dealt with the question whether a civil commercial court in Delhi could entertain a recovery suit when the plaint did not disclose any facts demonstrating territorial jurisdiction. The High Court examined whether a plaint that is silent on jurisdictional facts can be cured through pleadings like replication or by amendment, especially when an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is pending.
Factual Background
MTS Papers India Limited, the appellant, is a trader of various paperboard products. It facilitated a supply arrangement between Spento Papers India LLP and a third-party customer in Vietnam. As per the understanding between the parties, MTS acted as an intermediary by negotiating price, raising orders, obtaining proforma invoices and handling commercial communication on behalf of the overseas customer. The commission payable to MTS was allegedly agreed upon by both sides.
Supply of paperboard was executed by Spento Papers to the Vietnamese customer. However, commission was not paid to MTS, despite repeated email reminders and a legal notice. MTS then initiated pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, but the respondent did not appear. Consequently, MTS filed a recovery suit in Delhi seeking an amount of ₹44,88,961 together with interest.
Procedural Detail
The suit was filed before the Commercial Court in Rohini, Delhi as CS (COMM) 519/2022. Spento Papers filed a written statement and also moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground that no territorial jurisdiction existed. The trial court noted that the plaint did not contain material particulars showing how Delhi courts had territorial jurisdiction. An attempt was later made by MTS to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, claiming that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The trial court dismissed the amendment application and thereafter allowed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 10, returning the plaint through an order dated 22 March 2025. MTS then filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act.
Core Dispute
The central controversy before the High Court was whether the plaint, as originally filed, disclosed territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC. If it did not, could the court consider the replication or allow amendment to insert jurisdictional pleadings, while an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was pending? The dispute involved the interplay between the statutory requirement for jurisdiction, the scope of pleadings, and the powers of the court when jurisdictional defects exist.
Detailed Reasoning Including Judicial Citations
The High Court reiterated that the objection under Order VII Rule 10 is decided on demurrer, meaning that the facts stated in the plaint must be presumed to be true, and the question is whether, even if all facts stated are correct, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688, which emphasised that when territorial jurisdiction is challenged, only the plaint can be looked at and not the defence.
The Court examined the plaint and found that paragraph 23 was the only averment regarding jurisdiction, which merely stated that the plaintiff “works for profit in Delhi”. There was no pleading that any part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, no statement that the agreement was executed in Delhi, that payment was due in Delhi, or that commission invoices were payable in Delhi. Therefore, the plaint was silent on jurisdictional facts.
The High Court analysed several authorities, including: M/s RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma, 2016:DHC:5482-DB HSIL Limited v. Imperial Ceramic, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185 Archie Comic Publications Inc. v. Purple Creation Pvt. Ltd., 172 (2010) DLT 234 (DB)
From these decisions, the High Court derived the settled legal position that if a plaint discloses some jurisdictional facts, even if incomplete, amendment may be allowed. However, if the plaint discloses no jurisdictional facts at all, then the court has no authority to retain the matter and cannot entertain an amendment to cure that defect. The Court emphasised that permitting such amendment would amount to conferring jurisdiction where none existed, which is legally impermissible.
The Court clarified that jurisdiction must be determined only on the basis of the plaint as originally filed. While MTS argued that replication contained jurisdictional pleadings and should have been considered, the High Court noted that replication cannot substitute or supplement the plaint for determining jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10.
It relied on Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791, which held that where a court inherently lacks jurisdiction due to statutory limitation, no amount of consent, waiver or amendment can confer jurisdiction.
On this legal foundation, the High Court affirmed that the plaint did not show how Delhi courts had territorial jurisdiction; therefore, the trial court was right in returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Commercial Court. It was held that since the plaint, as presented originally, contained no facts to support territorial jurisdiction, the trial court was correct in not considering the replication and in rejecting the amendment application. As a result, the plaint stood returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Concluding Note
This judgment strengthens the principle that litigants cannot choose any forum at convenience merely because they carry on business there. Jurisdiction flows from the statute and from the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. If the plaint does not disclose jurisdictional facts, the court has no authority even to allow an amendment to correct the omission. The ruling serves as a caution that recovery suits and commercial suits must plead territorial jurisdiction with precision, as defects of jurisdiction cannot be cured later.
---
Case Details (as required)
Case Title: MTS Papers India Limited v. Spento Papers India LLP
Order Date: 17 November 2025
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 214/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXXX (as reflected at the top of the order)
Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon’ble Judges: Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal
---
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
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Return of Plaint and the Limits of Amendment — A Study of Territorial Jurisdiction in Commercial Litigation
2. Jurisdiction Cannot Be Cured: Lessons from MTS Papers v. Spento Papers on Plaint Deficiencies
3. Demurrer and Judicial Discipline in Order VII Rule 10 CPC: Delhi High Court’s Approach
4. Why Replication Cannot Save a Defective Plaint: A Critical Commentary on Jurisdictional Pleadings
5. Commercial Courts and Territorial Jurisdiction: The Evidentiary Value of Initial Pleadings
=====
Kerala High Court Restores Injunction in “BOKASHI BUCKET” Trademark Dispute — Rajeev K.P. v. Unais K.K. | Order dated 18 November 2025 | FAO No.118 of 2025 | Justice S. Manu | High Court of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has set aside the trial court’s refusal to grant interim relief and has restored a temporary injunction in favour of the trademark proprietor in the case Rajeev K.P. v. Unais K.K.. The plaintiff, registered owner of the trademark “BOKASHI BUCKET”, alleged that the defendant was selling compost bins using the identical mark, thereby infringing the registration. The trial court earlier dismissed the interim injunction application on the grounds that no prima facie case existed and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
Hearing the appeal, the High Court noted that the plaintiff is the undisputed registered proprietor of the mark “BOKASHI BUCKET”, and that the defendant used the same mark for identical goods. The Court emphasized that under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, registration grants exclusive rights to use the mark, and when both the mark and the goods are identical, the law mandates a presumption of confusion under Section 29(2)(c) read with 29(3). Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022) 5 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that in such cases, the inquiry into deception or confusion is not required — the very use of the identical registered mark constitutes infringement.
The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that trademark protection became ineffective merely because rectification proceedings were initiated or because of delay in filing counter-statement before the Registry. It held that until the registration is formally cancelled, statutory trademark rights remain fully enforceable.
Setting aside the lower court order, the High Court restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling or promoting compost bins using the mark “BOKASHI BUCKET” during the pendency of the suit.
---
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
====
