M/S Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd vs Anand Kumar Prajapati on 20 February, 2026
"40.5 To advert, now, to the principles emanating from the
decisions of Division Bench of this Court. Banyan Tree directly
addressed the issue of whether a suit for infringement or
passing off could be filed before a court within whose
jurisdiction the plaintiff did not carry on business, on the
ground that the defendant had hosted a universally accessible
website. Though, in para 8 of the decision, the Division Bench
observed that it was not examining the matter from the point of
view of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as it was not
dealing with an infringement suit, the subsequent principles, as
laid down by the Division Bench have expressly been made
applicable both to infringement and passing off cases. On the
issue of whether Banyan Tree applies in infringement cases,
Division Benches of this Court have differed. While the
decisions in World Wrestling Entertainment and Ultra Home
Construction hold the decision in Banyan Tree not to be
applicable because it considered only Section 20 of the CPC,
and not Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as also because
it was a case of passing off, and not of infringement, the
subsequent Division Bench in Tata Sons has expressly held
Banyan Tree to be applicable in infringement cases as well.
Banyan Tree, for its part, clearly states that the principles laid
down would apply both in cases of infringement and passing off.
For the present, therefore, I have to treat the decision in Banyan
Tree as applicable both to infringement as well as passing off
cases.