Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has relied on case titled Exxon Mobil Corporation Vs. Exoncorp Private Ltd. which is an order passed by Hon'ble High Court on the original side in CS (Comm.) No. 111/2019 on 16.07.2019. The matter is distinguishable from the case in hand in so far as plaintiff in the cited case is an American Company and relied solely on carryingout operations through interactive website www.exxonmobil.com apart from mentioning that it had a Research and Development Centre at Bangalore and also has several subsidiary companies in India. Defendant too was alleged to be carrying on business through interactive www.exoncorp.com apart from presence at several social media websites.

42.As regards the plea that part cause of action can be said to have arisen in Delhi as per Section 20(c) CPC on account of the plea that defendant is selling merchandise online and as such interactive websites can be accessed from Delhi, this Court finds no reason as to how an interactive website which is accessible from Delhi can be said to be not accessible from Ajmer, Rajasthan where both plaintiff and defendants are not only residing but are also carrying on their business.

43.In para 24 of IPRS judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned and warned that no plaintiff can be allowed to take the defendant to a far away farther place in the name of part cause of action by citing Section 20 (c) CPC when the suit can be easily maintained at plaintiff's place of residence/workplace as per trademark and copyright laws and defendant's place of residence/workplace as per Section 20 (a) and Section 20 (b) of CPC.

44.The second judgment relied is Icon Health and Fitness, INC Vs. Sheriff Usman and Anr. which is miscellaneous order passed in CS(Comm.) No. 216/2016 dated 12.09.2017. In the cited case the plaintiff is an American company carrying on business through interactive website www.ifit.com as also through mobile apps on App Store and Google Play while defendant no. 2 is said to be a resident of UAE. The suit was allowed to be maintained in Delhi on the pecularity of circumstances Rukhmani Keshwani Vs. Raju Agarbatti Works and Anr.

page 24 whereunder neither the parties belonged to Delhi and were carrying out business in Delhi in virtual world unlike the case in hand.

45.Plaintiff has also relied on M/s Bvlgari SPA Vs. M/s Smart Collection and Ors. an order passed in CS(comm.) 209/18 dated 25.07.2018 wherein plaintiff is an Italian Luxury Brand selling merchandise through interactive websites and social media handles. The defendants are also shown to be selling infringing goods on interactive websites. The suit was allowed to be maintained in Delhi in the pecularity of circumstances solely on the basis of the fact that both the websites are accessible from Delhi and as such part cause of action has arisen. The cited judgment does not discuss salutory judgment of IPRS Vs. Sanjay Dalia.