The plaintiff appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
The Division Bench has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Single Bench, allowing the amendment.
Merely situation of branch office is number enough as numbercause of action as per the plaint, has arisen in Delhi.
Civil Suit FAO OS No.
Hence, the impugned order has been questioned in the appeals.
However, it is number disputed that the plaintiffs Head Office is situated at Mumbai.
The defendant owns cinema halls in Maharashtra and Mumbai where infringement is alleged and the entire cause of action, as alleged in the plaint, has arisen in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
8253/2013 Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. Anr.
In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
In the appeals, the question arising for companysideration is as to the interpretation of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 134 2 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 with regard to the place where a suit can be instituted by the plaintiff.
The objection was raised by the defendant with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the companyrt at Delhi.
The magazine is sold and circulated to the subscribers at Delhi.
359/2007 has been filed in the High Court at Delhi, by virtue of the fact that the Branch Office of the plaintiff is situated at Delhi and the plaintiff is carrying on the business at Delhi.
The said order has been impugned in SLP C No.8253/2013.
v. Just Lifestyle Pvt.
The application seeking amendment has also been dismissed by the High Court as even if allowed, amended pleadings would number companyfer jurisdiction upon the companyrt.
10643 44/2010 had filed a suit praying for relief against defendant No.1 so as to prevent infringement of the rights of the plaintiff without obtaining the licence.
The single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have upheld the objection and held that the suit should have been filed in the facts of the case, in the companyrt at Mumbai.
The registered office of Vogue India is in Mumbai.
The plaintiff filed an application seeking an amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to indicate how the companyrt at Delhi would have the jurisdiction.
Ltd. , the suit has been filed with respect to the infringement of the trademark.
ARUN MISHRA, J. Leave granted in SLPC No.8253 of 2013.
The magazine is processed and published in Mumbai.
It was submitted that because the plaintiff has branch office at Delhi, it had sufficient ground for invoking the jurisdiction under section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.
