Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr.Arun C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, submitted that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside on account of the erroneous application of law apart from being contrary to the pleadings, evidence produced on record by the parties. It is submitted that the suit was filed at Chennai against the respondents 1 & 2, who are selling infringed goods and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and against the http://www.judis.nic.in fourth respondent who is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and this fact was not denied or disputed by the respondents/defendants. It is submitted that the learned Single Bench ought to have noted that the suit being an action in common law for passing off, jurisdiction applicable is where, the infringing goods are made available for sale and in the present suit, the infringing products are available in Chennai. It is submitted that the learned Single Bench was right in granting leave to sue by order dated 11.09.2018, in Application No.6926 of 2018, by taking note of the averment made by the appellants that the respondents 1 and 2 are also responsible for the manufacture and distribution of goods all over the country including Chennai, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court as pleaded in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to sue. Further, it is submitted that the learned Single Bench rightly granted the leave to sue by placing reliance on the averments made in the plaint, which is most germane in matters relating to territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, it is submitted that the Court while revoking the leave granted erroneously held that there is no pleading by the appellant/plaintiff with regard to carrying on business and sale on commercial basis by the respondents 1 and 2 in Chennai. It is further submitted that the Court should have taken into consideration the pleadings set out in the plaint, which are http://www.judis.nic.in utmost germane. The Court failed to note that there is a specific averment in the plaint that the products of the respondents 1 and 2 are available in Chennai and this plaint averment read with paragraph 9 of the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to sue clearly shows that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Parle Products Private Limited vs. Surya Food and Agro Limited reported in MANU/TN/2109/2008.

9. The settled legal position is that a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the Suit.

10. In Parle Products Private Limited (supra), it has been http://www.judis.nic.in held that for deciding the issue as to whether leave granted should be revoked, one has to look only to the averments in the plaint and documents filed by the applicant and if the appellant/plaintiff had shown that the defendant have made sale of an infringing product within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, leave to sue prayed for ought to be granted as part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as per clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

- the appellant/plaintiff or defendant, if the leave is granted or refused as the case may be. The decision in Parle Products Private Limited (supra), in our considered view does not advance the case of the appellant/plaintiff. On facts, we have found that there is no specific pleading either in the affidavit filed in support of leave to sue application or in the plaint averments as to how the defendants 1 to 3 are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Unless and until, the Court is satisfied that there are pleadings and materials to show that infringement of the appellant's/plaintiff's mark has been done by the respondents 1 to 3 within the jurisdiction of this Court, the question of contending that the matter has to be adjudicated at the time of trial by adducing oral and documentary evidence does not arise. Therefore, we cannot be called upon to decide as to whether leave to be granted or not, based on assumptions and we are required to go by the facts. On perusal of the facts as set out by the appellant/plaintiff in their pleadings, we are fully convinced that the learned Single Bench was justified in revoking the leave granted to the appellant/plaintiff.