Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 267 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd vs Sanjay Dalia & Anr on 1 July, 2015

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited vs Shri Rhythm Agarwal on 15 July, 2022

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Sanjay Dalia and another case (cited supra) observed that the provisions of Section 134(2) of Trade Marks Act and other provisions in the C.P.C relating to jurisdiction have to be interpreted in such a way as to prevent the mischief of causing inconvenience to the parties. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the place of business of the plaintiff 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021 and cause of action had arisen with the same place, it is the Court which has Jurisdiction over that place which will take precedence and the plaintiff cannot institute the suit in any other place where he carries on business. However, we find that the cause of action has not arisen admittedly in the District of Ghaziabad, where the plaintiff carries on business. It is only in the District of Agra where the defendant resides, the cause of action had arisen. Therefore, the Branch office and the place where the cause of action had arisen are in two different places. That is, exactly, why the respondent has stated very interestingly, in his application stated that they were in “similar place” and he has not chosen to say that it was in the same place. In other words, it is the respondent's contention that since the Appellant had one more place of business which is nearer to the place where cause of action had arisen, he ought to have chosen that place to institute the suit. We hold that such an interpretation would be in violation of the provisions of Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, besides, being contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the place where the cause of action had arisen and place of the business of plaintiff are one and the same, then the plaintiff has no choice, except, to file the suit in that place. In the instant case, it is not so, as we have stated earlier.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited vs Shri Rhythm Agarwal on 15 July, 2022

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Sanjay Dalia and another case (cited supra) observed that the provisions of Section 134(2) of Trade Marks Act and other provisions in the C.P.C relating to jurisdiction have to be interpreted in such a way as to prevent the mischief of causing inconvenience to the parties. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the place of business of the 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021 plaintiff and cause of action had arisen with the same place, it is the Court which has Jurisdiction over that place which will take precedence and the plaintiff cannot institute the suit in any other place where he carries on business. However, we find that the cause of action has not arisen admittedly in the District of Ghaziabad, where the plaintiff carries on business. It is only in the District of Agra where the defendant resides, the cause of action had arisen. Therefore, the Branch office and the place where the cause of action had arisen are in two different places. That is, exactly, why the respondent has stated very interestingly, in his application stated that they were in “similar place” and he has not chosen to say that it was in the same place. In other words, it is the respondent's contention that since the Appellant had one more place of business which is nearer to the place where cause of action had arisen, he ought to have chosen that place to institute the suit. We hold that such an interpretation would be in violation of the provisions of Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, besides, being contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the place where the cause of action had arisen and place of the business of plaintiff are one and the same, then the plaintiff has no choice, except, to file the suit in that place. In the instant case, it is not so, as we have stated earlier.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited vs Shri Rhythm Agarwal on 15 July, 2022

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society vs. Sanjay Dalia and another case (cited supra) observed that the provisions of Section 134(2) of Trade Marks Act and other provisions in the C.P.C relating to jurisdiction have to be interpreted in such a way as to prevent the mischief of causing inconvenience to the parties. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the place of business of the plaintiff 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021 and cause of action had arisen with the same place, it is the Court which has Jurisdiction over that place which will take precedence and the plaintiff cannot institute the suit in any other place where he carries on business. However, we find that the cause of action has not arisen admittedly in the District of Ghaziabad, where the plaintiff carries on business. It is only in the District of Agra where the defendant resides, the cause of action had arisen. Therefore, the Branch office and the place where the cause of action had arisen are in two different places. That is, exactly, why the respondent has stated very interestingly, in his application stated that they were in “similar place” and he has not chosen to say that it was in the same place. In other words, it is the respondent's contention that since the Appellant had one more place of business which is nearer to the place where cause of action had arisen, he ought to have chosen that place to institute the suit. We hold that such an interpretation would be in violation of the provisions of Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, besides, being contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the place where the cause of action had arisen and place of the business of plaintiff are one and the same, then the plaintiff has no choice, except, to file the suit in that place. In the instant case, it is not so, as we have stated earlier.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Rainbow Hospitals vs Rainbow Children'S Medicare Limited

21. A close scrutiny of the facts involved in Sanjay Dalia case would make it clear, in that case, the plaintiff was having its head office at Mumbai and Branch Office at Delhi. The whole of the cause of action arose at Mumbai and hence the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when plaintiff was carrying on business at a place and the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen in that place, he has to file a suit in that place instead of filing a suit in a place, where no part of the cause of action arose but he had branch office. In other words where plaintiff carries on business in more than one place by having different branch office at different places (namely A, B, C) and the cause of action either partially or wholly arose at place 'B' and not in places A and C, the concession available to plaintiff under Section 134 of Trade Marks Act, is restricted to place 'B' alone. To that extent, the sweep of Section 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S (COMM DIV) No.254 of 2022 134(2) is restricted by combining place of business and cause of action. But in cases where no part of cause of action arose in any of the places A, B or C, plaintiff has option of filing suit in any one of the place A, B, C. In the case on hand, the whole of the cause of action arose at Salem, where the applicant/defendant carries on business. The registered office of the first respondent/plaintiff is situated at Hyderabad and it's branch hospital is situated within the territorial limits of this Court at Chennai. No part of the cause of action arose either at Chennai or at Hyderabad. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff shall file suit only at Hyderabad, where no cause of action arose or at Salem, where it has no branch office. As mentioned earlier, by virtue of Section 120 of CPC, Section 20 of CPC is not applicable to the original side of this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Rspl Ltd. vs Mukesh Sharma & Anr. on 5 April, 2016

54. The reason for my having a different view is that, apparently, it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench that in Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a fact situation, wherein the plaintiff company's principal place of business/ head office was situated at Mumbai, and the cause of action had also arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts at Mumbai, whereas the suit had been filed in Delhi - where the subordinate office of the plaintiff was situated, but where no cause of action has arisen.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 38 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Mukesh Agarwal Trading As Tirupati ... vs Vijay Kumar Trading As Vijay Kumar Hing ... on 19 September, 2025

seller/retailers does not confirm territorial jurisdiction in such matters. The Plaintiff has no existence in Delhi, no instance of any actual online or offline sale of the goods of the Plaintiff and Defendant in Delhi have been placed on record. This Hon'ble Court does not possess necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit. In their own documents filed by the Plaintiff with the plaint there is not even a single sale instance and document of Delhi. In any case, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff and Defendant both are residing and carrying on business etc., at Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, and cause of action wholly or in part has also arisen within the Commercial Court, Aligarh, under such circumstances the Plaintiff has to file a suit at that place. The Defendant humbly relies on Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd, Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr (AIR 2015 SC 3479), therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next