Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Explanation - A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.‖

12. The plaintiffs in the present case also seek to rely on Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 which reads as under:-

―134. Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court.-- (1) No suit--

Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (2), ―person‖ includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.‖

13. It may be added here that the Copyrights Act, 1957 contains a provision governing the issue of jurisdiction in Section 62 which is pari materia similar to Section 134 of Trademarks Act, 1999. The question as to interpretation of Section 134 (2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 with regard to the place where a suit can be instituted were considered by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161. This Court had the occasion to apply the law laid down in Sanjay Dalia (Supra) in another decision dated 20th December, 2016 in the context of similar application for return of the plaint in CS (OS) 3694/2014 Piruz Khambatta & Anr. Vs. Rajmohan Rupaji Modi & Ors. (2016 SCC Online Del 6494) and had extracted (in para 23) the following prime holdings in Sanjay Dalia (supra) :-

(emphasis supplied)

15. As noted earlier, plaintiff is a corporation incorporated in USA. Whilst it may possibly have some branch office in Delhi, as already noted, the documents filed by the plaintiff show that its principal place of business in India is in Mumbai (State of Maharashtra. Since the plaintiff also relies on Section 20 CPC to contend that cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the moot question begs for consideration and answer is as to whether a case to such effect has been properly set out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 (c) CPC in which context, as indeed for purposes of Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the fact that the principal place of office of the plaintiff is in Mumbai would remain germane.

(emphasis supplied)

18. Since the plaintiff also relies on pleadings about it being engaged in business in Delhi, the meaning and import of the expression "carries on business" or "personally works for gain", as used both in Section 20 CPC and Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 is relevant. In this context, the views of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Dodha House & Patel Field Marshal Institute vs. S.K. Maingi & P.M. Diesel Ltd. 2006 (32) PTC 1 (as appearing in para 49) to the following effect are relevant:-