CASE:O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.19646 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Madras
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Hon'ble Justice M Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan
CASE TITLE: Simpson and Company Limited Vs Rythm Agrawal
The Appellant was the Defendant and Respondent was the Plaintiff in the matter.
After conclusion of the trial, when the matter was listed for final argument, the Appellant filed application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint.
The Appellant based their argument on the basis of Judgement namely (2015) 10 SCC 161 (Indian Performing Rights Society Limited vs Sanjay Dalia and another) wherein it was held that if the plaintiff is carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has arisen, he can only file the suit at that place and not in any other place where he may be carrying on business.
The same was based of limited interpretation of Provisions of Section 134 (2) of Trademarks Act 1999. As per the interpretation given by the Appellant, the Suit was liable to be returned as Plaintiff and Defendant both were carrying on business in similar place in UP. It was not the case of the Appellant that those were the same places.
The Hon'ble Division Bench that in the fact of case, the Respondent was carrying on business at Ghaziabad, U.P. while the Appellant was based in Agra, which were not the same place.
It is submitted that things would have been different , had the relevant places of the Appellant and the Respondent been identical, i.e. either Ghaziabad or Agra, which was not true in the present case.
In view of the above, the Appellant's application based on interpretation of Section 134 of Trademarks Act 1999 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC could not have been allowed.
The Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject the argument of the Appellant that the Suit was liable to be returned within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539
