Delhi High Court - Orders
Great Galleon Ventures Limited vs Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor Of ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 343/2023 & I.As., 10180/2023, 21479/2023, 2032/2024
GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Surya
Rajappan, Ms. Tejasvini Puri and Ms.
Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates.
versus
CHAMPA PREMA TANDEL SOLE PROPRIETOR OF
DHARMESH DISTILLERY & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Ms. Shruti Iyer, Mr. Anand K. and
Ms. Nishita Jagetia, Advocates for D-
1.
Mr. Shreekant Terdal, Ms. Devki N.
and Ms. Priyanka T., Advocates for
D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.05.2024 I.A. 2032/2024 (seeking condonation of delay of 57 days and extension of time in filing the written statement)
1. Defendant No. 1 seeks condonation of delay of 57 days beyond the 30 days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,1 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in filing the written statement.
2. The request is opposed by Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, counsel for Plaintiff, who argues that the filing itself is non est as the affidavit accompanying the 1 "CPC."
CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 1 of 18This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:57 written statement was executed prior to the date on which the written statement was filed. However, he concedes that the subsequent date of filing was within the overall limit of 120 days that can be condoned.
3. The Court has considered the above-noted contentions. Defendant No. 1 has satisfactorily explained that the delay was due to the time required by the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 to gather the necessary documents, which were critical for filing the written statement. Furthermore, as Mr. Wadhwa acknowledges, even if the delay is calculated from the later filing date, it falls within the permissible condonable limit.
4. Therefore, considering the justifications provided in the application, delay of 57 days in filing of the written statement is condoned. The written statement is taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff.
5. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10176/2023 (u/Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) and I.A. 21479/2023 (u/Order XXXIX Rule 4 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
6. The Plaintiff, proprietor of the trademark and registered owner of the copyright " ," has filed the present suit seeking to restrain the CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 2 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:57 use of " " by Defendant No. 1, for manufacture and distribution of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.2
7. While issuing summons on 25th May, 2023, on a prima facie assessement of the facts presented, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was ganted, restraining Defendant No. 1 from using their label/mark " " or any other label similar to Plaintiff's label. Now, through I.A. 21479/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC], Defendant No. 1 prays for vacation of the ex-parte injunction. This order shall thus dispose of both the above-captioned applications, evaluating whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction against Defendant No. 1's impugned activities, pending final disposal of the suit.
The Plaintiff's case:
8. The facts and contentions presented by Mr. Wadhwa are summarized 2 "IMFL".
CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 3 of 18This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:57 below:
8.1. The Plaintiff, Great Galleon Ventures Ltd., is a part of the Kedia Group of Companies, and is a leading manufacturer and seller of IMFL under several trademarks, including the "GOA" brand. This mark was adopted by the Kedia Group in 1992 for whiskey, gin, rum, and other liquor produced by them. In 2000, with the bifurcation of business within the Group, the Plaintiff took over the operations of Madhya Pradesh unit of the Kedia Group and has been independently manufacturing liquor under the "GOA" trademark since then.
8.2. In 2002, Plaintiff coined the mark "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" for IMFL products, for which they obtained an excise license in 2003-04. Over time, Plaintiff adopted several variations of the label for its "GOA" product range, such as, " ", " ", " " and " ." Of CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 4 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 these, the copyright in artistic works " " and " " have been registered in the Plaintiff's favour under certificate Nos. A-139673/2021 and A-135891/2021. The Plaintiff's applications No. 2997448 and 3951015 for registration of the trademarks " " and " ", respectively, are currently pending before the Trademarks Registry.
8.3. Plaintiff's "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" brand has garnered enormous goodwill and reputation amongst the members of the trade and public, as is evidenced by annual sales amounting to Rs. 90,89,10,399 in the year 2021-22, preceding the filing of the present lawsuit. 8.4. In March 2023, the Plaintiff learnt of manufacture and sale of CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 5 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 counterfeit whiskey by Defendant No. 1 under an identical mark "GOA BEACH SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS."3 Plaintiff's investigation revealed that these products are manufactured in Daman and are illegally sold in the States of Delhi, Goa, Maharashtra, and Gujarat through bootleggers. Plaintiff also discovered that Defendant No. 1, along with five other distillers based in Daman, were previously booked and searched by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to a duty-evasion scam in 2010 as they were engaged in unauthorised sale of under-reported liquor bottles to Goa, Gujarat and Maharasthra.
8.5. Defendant No. 1 has replicated the Plaintiff's marks by using "GOA BEACH SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" and " ." This identity in the trademarks/ labels utilized by both parties is likely to deceive the consuming public. Plaintiff is an established entity, whose existence in the market and use of their marks long precede that of Defendant No. 1. Therefore, imitation of the distinctive trade dress and trademark by Defendant No. 1 amounts to passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiff as well as infringement of Plaintiff's registered copyright. 8.6. On the objection of Defendant No. 1 to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Mr. Wadhwa argues that at this juncture, the Court must consider 3 "impugned mark"
CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 6 of 18This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 the question of territorial jurisdiction on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and Defendant No. 1's defence is not to be taken into consideration.
Contentions of Defendant No. 1:
9. Ms. Shruti Iyer, counsel for Defendant No. 1, opposes the application for interim injunction by making the following submissions:
9.1. Defendant No. 1 was established in 1993 for conducting the business of bottling and blending alcoholic beverages. Influenced by the impact of cultural heritage and history of Goa on Daman and Diu, Defendant No. 1 first adopted the impugned mark in 2004, however, as the product sale did not meet the business expectations, the same was discontinued. The impugned product was later reintroduced in 2013 to cater to consumers in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Defendant No. 1 secured the necessary approvals from the Excise Department for blended and bottled "GOA BEACH WHISKEY" in 2004. Therefore, Defendant No. 1 is an honest and concurrent user of the impugned mark. Owing to such extensive business activities, Defendant No. 1 has become a formidable market player in the areas of Daman and Diu.
9.2. Defendant No. 1's operations are restricted to the territory of Daman and Diu, where Plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate their presence.
The difference in the geographical areas is sufficient for consumers to distinguish between the two products and markedly reduces the potential of any harm or prejudice to the Plaintiff's business.
9.3. That apart, the product labels and packaging used by both parties are also differentiable as: (a) shape of the bottle of Defendant No. 1's product is CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 7 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 sleek and smaller in size than the Plaintiff's, (b) the cap and seal of the bottle of impugned product is silver in colour, whereas the Plaintiff's is customized in white and orange colour, (c) the label of Defendant No. 1's product has golden outline, while the Plaintiff's label has two border lines, one in orange and the other in silver colours, (d) the parallel lines that contain the Plaintiff's product name are straight but in Defendant No. 1's label, the lines are curvy, (e) placement of the words "GOA BEACH" on the impugned label is different as there is no space between the cap and the words "GOA BEACH," (f) the font size and colour of the words "GOA BEACH" is dissimilar to the manner in which Plaintiff uses the word "GOA" on their label, (g) the shape, size and number of palm trees on Defendant No. 1's label are completely different than the Plaintiff's label,
(h) the positioning of the bar code in Defendant No. 1's label is on the bottom left of the label, while on the Plaintiff's label, it is placed on the bottom right corner. The size and manner of depiction of the bar code is also different, (j) there is a noticeable variation in the taste of both whiskeys, which has been proved through tests, and (k) the impugned product clearly states that the product is "for sale in U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu only."
9.4. Besides the factors described above, Defendant No. 1's product prominently displays the name of the manufacturer as 'Dharmesh Distillery,' unambiguously identifying the source as Defendant No. 1. 9.5. Defendant No. 1 commenced open and continuous usage of the impugned mark in 2004, and then again in 2013; however, the suit was filed by the Plaintiff in 2023. There is an unexplained and significant delay of ten years in instituting the present proceedings, which disentitles the Plaintiff CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 8 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 from seeking any interim reliefs.
9.6. The Plaintiff's pending trademark applications for the marks " " and " " have been opposed by different entities. Further, a cursory search on the portal of the Trademarks Registry discloses that there are several other entities who utilize the term "GOA" or its variations in their trademarks. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim to be an owner of the subject label/ mark or exclusive rights over the word "GOA" or "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS."
9.7. The present suit is not maintainable as the courts in Delhi lack the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Defendant No. 1 is only operating in Daman and Diu and has not made any sales in Delhi. The Plaintiff has based their cause of action on the purported sale of the impugned counterfeit products through some bootleggers within the territory of Delhi, however, Defendant No. 1 has no relation to any such persons. Therefore, the pleaded cause of action is not supported by any evidence and a mere allegation would not vest jurisdiction on this Court. Neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant No. 1 have their registered offices in Delhi. Without any cause of action within Delhi, a suit cannot be instituted before this Court merely because Plaintiff has a subordinate office within its jurisdictional limits. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in Indian Performing Rights CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 9 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia,4 Ultra Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey,5 and Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Nakshatra Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. and Anr.6 9.8. In the absence of any territorial jurisdiction, the injunction order passed by this Court is liable to be vacated.
Analysis and findings:
10. The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. A comparison of the two labels is as follows:
Plaintiff's label/ product Defendant No. 1's label/ product 4 (2015) 10 SCC 161.5
2016 SCC OnLine Del 376.
62017 SCC OnLine Del, 7682 CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 10 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58
11. Under Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protection is afforded to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. The Plaintiff claims that they have copyright in the artistic design of the label " " and rely upon their copyright registration to assert ownership. Defendant No. 1, on the other hand, emphasizes that their label is distinct from the Plaintiff's, thus claiming orginality in their own design. Accordingly, focusing on the broad features of the Plaintiff's and Defendant No.1's artistic works, this Court undertakes a comparative analysis of the respective artistic works, guided by the ruling in Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur.7 The side-by-side comparison reveals that Defendant No.1's design label 7 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488.
CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 11 of 18This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 does not merely exhibit substantial similarity to that of the Plaintiff's registered copyright, it constitutes a slavish imitation thereof. Such imitation extends beyond the mere copying of general layout or theme. Nearly all critical features of the Plaintiff's design, including the style of writing "GOA", "WHISKY," and the phrase "SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS," the graphic represenation of palm trees, the overall color scheme have been copied. Given this extensive copying, Defendant No.1's label design lacks the necessary degree of creativity and distinctiveness required for copyright eligibility. This level of similarity extends beyond mere layout to include specific thematic elements and color usage, clearly indicating an infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright-protected artistic work
12. The Plaintiff is also allegeing passing off of their trademark "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" and the trade dress comprising the get-up, packaging, design and colour scheme of the Plaintiff's whiskey bottle. Thus, considering that labels serve as part of trade dress/ packaging of the products, it is also crucial to assess the overall impression created by them on consumers, rather than dissecting each minor detail. The minor differences highlighted by Defendant No.1's counsel, such as cap color, line design on the label, and variations in the palm trees' graphics are insufficient to mitigate consumer confusion. These resemblances between the two are likely to confuse consumers, who might mistake Defendant No. 1's product for the Plaintiff's. Since the products in question are alcoholic beverages sold in set-ups where consumers make quick decisions, they are likely to overlook the suffix "BEACH" following the word "GOA" on the impugned product/ label or the differences in the cap colour, line design on the label, shape, number, and size of palm tree graphics etc. The overall likeness of CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 12 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 the two marks/ labels is likely to outweigh the prospects of a consumer identifying the name of Defendant No. 1 [Dharmesh Distillery] mentioned in a running font size on the impugned label. Insofar as the stamp reading "for sale in U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu only" affixed on the impugned product is concerned, it does not reduce the probable confusion as the consumer could perceive that the particular product, originating from the Plaintiff, is meant to be sold in the specified States only. Thus, keeping the consumer's viewpoint in mind, the Court disagrees with Defendant No. 1's claim that the products bearing the conflicting labels are unlikely to be confused. The two are deceptively similar, posing a high risk of deceiving the public.
13. The Plaintiff has presented sufficient material on record to demonstrate continous use of the mark "GOA" since 1999 through their predecessor-in-interest, and "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" since 2003-04, when the excise license was issued for the said brand. Defendant No. 1, on the other hand, secured approval for "GOA BEACH WHISKY" in 2004. Admittedly, Defendant No. 1 discontinued its use till 2013. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the prior user of the marks "GOA" and "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS."
14. The Plaintiff has prima facie established that their mark "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS", through long and continuous use, and extensive sales has acquired an reputation and goodwill. The sales figures disclosed in the plaint are authenticated by Chartered Accountant's certificate and supported by numerous sales invoices placed on record. Thus, Defendant No. 1's adoption and use of "GOA BEACH SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS", which is deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark is solely CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 13 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 with the intention of capitalizing on the Plaintiff's established goodwill by creating confusion among the trade members and the public. This intent is manifest in Defendant No. 1's choice to employ packaging, trademarks, and trade dress that are virtually identical to those used by the Plaintiff. Notably, the Plaintiff's mark "GOA SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" and Defendant No. 1's impugned mark are utilized for the same type of product, namely whiskey. Such actions not only suggest a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers, but also constitute a clear violation of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights. In view of the similarities between the two marks, as elucidated above, and the consequent risk of consumer confusion, Defendant No. 1 is prima facie passing off their products as that of the Plaintiff. The Court remains unconvinced by Defendant No. 1's claims that Plaintiff is not the creator/ author of the artwork consisted in their registered copyright " " and " ." The adoption of a nearly identical label also amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered copyright.
15. The Court also rejects Defendant No. 1's contention of inordinate delay and laches in filing the lawsuit. While Defendant No. 1 may have been conducting their operations since 2013 and there may have been a significant delay in the Plaintiff seeking relief, Defendant No. 1's label/packaging is nearly identical to the Plaintiff's, resulting in a clear CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 14 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 infringement of copyright. Moreover, Defendant No. 1's brand name is deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff's, indicating a deliberate attempt to cash in on the Plaintiff's established reputation. The adoption of a mark that closely resembles the Plaintiff's brand name and packaging, without apparent or valid reason, points to dishonest conduct. The Court is thus justified in concluding that Defendant No. 1's primary motive was to exploit the Plaintiff's goodwill. Thus, Defendant No. 1 cannot avoid an injunction based on delay alone, as the delay must be coupled with prejudice caused to the Defendant to constitute laches.8 Furthermore, equitable relief of delay and laches will only be afforded to a party whose conduct demonstrates honest concurrent use of the mark in question.9 Here, Defendant No. 1 has failed to show such honesty, and the significant similarity between the Plaintiff's and Defendant No. 1's labels/ packaging strongly suggests an intentional infringement. Even if there is an inordinate delay in bringing a suit for injunction, the application for an interim injunction cannot be dismissed solely on this ground. The Court must ensure that a party who has plainly infringed another's intellectual property rights does not escape liability simply because the Plaintiff is delayed in seeking the relief.
16. This brings us to the contention of lack of territorial jursidiction of this Court, which has been strongly urged by Ms. Iyer. The principle of law is well-settled that while evaluating Defendant No. 1's objection to territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, the Court is not tasked with examining the merits of the averments in the plaint, nor is it required to assess whether the Plaintiff will ultimately prove or establish 8 See: Cable News Network LLP (CNN) v. Cam News Network Limited, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1764.
9See: M/s Hindustan Pencils Private Limited v. M/s India Stationary Products Co. and Anr., 1989 SCC CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 15 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 these claims.10 For the purposes of deciding the objection under Order VII Rule 10, the averments in the plaint are presumed to be true and accurate. In Exphar SA and Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and Anr.,11 the Supreme Court held that when an objection to jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer and not at the trial, its assessment must proceed on the asusmption that the facts pleaded by the initiator of the proceedings are true. Thus, in order to succeed, the objector must demonstrate that on the basis of the pleaded facts, this Court would not have jurisdiction.
17. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has asserted as follows:
"56. The cause of action arose for the first time in March 2023 when the Plaintiff came across the impugned counterfeit/ illegal products of Defendant No. 1 being sold in Delhi under the identical/ deceptively similar brand name "GOA BEACH SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS". Upon further investigation it was found that said Defendant was manufacturing the impugned "GOA BEACH SPIRIT OF SMOOTHNESS" products in the U.T. Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. That the cause of action is a continuous one and shall continue to subsist until an order of injunction is granted by this Hon'ble Court."
18. The Plaintiff has instituted the suit before this Court citing the sale of the impugned products within Delhi by certain peddlers. It is alleged that Defendant No. 1's products, which are sold in various states without the requisite excise permissions, pose a significant threat to public health. Moreover, the Plaintiff contends that these products are counterfeit and are distributed through unauthorized channels in Delhi. Thus, having regard to the settled legal legal proposition noted above, the Court discerns that as per the Plaintiff's pleading, there is a disclosure of valid cause of action within OnLine Del 34.
10Refer: Dassault Systemes S.E. and Anr. v. Automobile Corporation of Goa Limited and Ors, DHC Neutral Citation: 2022:DHC:004229 and Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prag Distillery Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6422.
11(2004) 3 SCC 688 CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 16 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 this Court's terrirotrial jurisdiction for entertaining the present suit. The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant No. 1 is engaged in clandestine sales of alcohol inherently suggests that typical commercial documentation, such as cash memos or tax invoices, may not be available. Thus, following the principle settled in Sanjay Dalia (Supra) and Ultra Homes (Supra), given that the Plaintiff has a subordinate office in Delhi, where the cause of action has also arisen, in terms of Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, the present suit is maintainable before this Court.
19. The judgment in Radico Khaitan (Supra), relied upon by Defendant No. 1 is distinguishable on facts. In the cited precedent, the Plaintiff therein had averred that the Defendant was selling the impugned products in Mumbai, Maharashtra and there was an apprehension that the same would be sold within Delhi as well. Thus, the Plaintiff therein invoked this Court's jursidiction on the basis of 'dynamic effect' of such use outside Delhi. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that it lacked jursidiction and rejected the plaint. However, in the case at hand, there is an unambiguous pleading in the plaint that the impugned goods are being sold in Delhi.
20. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is prima facie satisfied that all the ingredients for passing off are clearly made out in the present case. Accordingly, the order dated 25th May, 2023 is confirmed and shall continue to operate during the pendency of the present suit.
21. Accordingly, I.A. 21479/2023 is dismissed and I.A. 10176/2023 is allowed.
22. The applications are disposed of.
CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 17 of 18This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58 I.A. 21478/ 2023 (u/Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
23. Through this application, Defendant No. 1 seeks rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction has been dealt with in the preceeding paragraphs while deciding the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the CPC.
24. Thus, for the reasons detailed hereinabove, the application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
CS(COMM) 343/2023
25. Replication to the written statement of Defendant No. 1 be filed within the prescribed time.
26. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 01st August, 2024.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 01, 2024 as CS(COMM) 343/2023 Page 18 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 21:40:58