The Delhi High Court observed that to decide jurisdiction at the initial stage, the Courts only have to see whether the plaint discloses the cause of action within the territorial limits of that Court. The Courts cannot qualitatively examine the merits of the statements made in the plaint. It was opined by the Bench that the Application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has to be considered on demurrer i.e., the averments in the plaint have to be assumed as correct.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant (‘Plaintiff’ in the suit) has preferred the present appeal against the order of the Learned Commercial Court vide which the Application of the Respondent (Defendant in the suit) under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC was allowed and plain of the Appellant was returned.
Brief Background:
A suit was filed by the Appellant who is a German-based company alleging that the Respondent is manufacturing and selling counterfeit products. Various reliefs such as injunction, restraining Respondent from using the mark ‘PUMA’ were sought by the Appellant. The Learned Trial Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent from using the said mark.
It was contended by the Respondent that there is no cause of action and Delhi Courts have no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the suit and hence, the plaint should be returned. The Learned Commercial Court while reviewing the order, examined that there are no averments in the Plaint that prove that cause of action had arisen in Delhi and therefore, the plaint was returned against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that the order passed with the consent of both parties cannot be asked to be reviewed merely on the ground that the Party has engaged a new counsel. Another contention was that the examination of the Application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is limited and not detailed as done by the Learned Commercial Court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the cause of action has not arisen in Delhi and none of the parties has their principal place of Business in Delhi. It was argued that selling products via websites that are only interactive and with which the Respondent has merely registered himself, does not give jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that to decide jurisdiction at the initial stage, the Courts only have to see whether the plaint discloses the cause of action within the territorial limits of that Court. The Courts cannot qualitatively examine the merits of the statements made in the plaint.
In the present case, the Bench noted that the Appellant has specifically pleaded apprehension that the Respondent would launch and start manufacturing in Delhi which has to be taken into consideration by the court. A suit filed on basis of apprehension in Latin is called ‘quiatimet suit’.
The High Court opined that at the stage of filing the suit, only averment regarding the material fact has to be seen. Substantiation of the averment is done at a later stage and is part of the evidence. In the present case, if averments in the plaint are observed, clearly the Learned Commercial Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
It was opined by the Bench that the Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC has to be considered on demurrer i.e., the averments in the plaint have to be assumed as correct.
It was also expounded by the Court that on the ground that a concession made by a lawyer does not bind the party cannot be a ground to seek a review of the order.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Delhi High Court set aside the order regarding the Application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. However, liberty was granted to the Respondent to raise the question of Jurisdiction at the time of trial.
Case Title: Puma Se v. D.K. Arora
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Case No.: FAO (COMM) 139/2022
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Mr. Ranjan Narula
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr. Sholab Arora
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments