Delhi High Court
M/S Krbl Limited vs M/S P K Overseas Pvt Ltd on 1 March, 2018
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 1st March, 2018
+ CM(M) 444/2014 and CM APPL.7745/2014 (stay)
M/S KRBL LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advocate with
Mr. Veerendra Kumar Sinha,
Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman,
Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Rahul Sharma, &
Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advs.
versus
M/S P K OVERSEAS PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar Advocate with
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand challenged the order dated 14.12.2014 of
the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the file of suit (TM
No.63/2011) which was instituted by the petitioner (plaintiff) to the
extent thereby it was directed that the matter arising out of application
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) of the respondent (defendant) seeking a review of order dated
15.05.2013 would be considered after the issue framed by the
impugned order on the question of territorial jurisdiction had been
addressed.
2. The suit in question was filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) on
06.07.2010 under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 27(2) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent
injunction, restraint against infringement, passing off, besides other
reliefs like rendition of accounts, etc. The respondent (defendant) had
moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC taking objections,
inter alia, to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit, such
objection also touching upon the issue of territorial jurisdiction. In the
wake of the said application, the plaintiff moved an application under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the suit, the prime effect
whereof was that the prayer for injunction against passing off was
withdrawn. Both the applications were considered by the trial Judge
by order dated 15.05.2013. The amendment to the suit was allowed
with the observation that the court would have jurisdiction to entertain
the prayer that remained, particularly the prayer for injunction against
infringement of the trade marks. The case was taken to the stage of
arguments on the pending applications for ad interim injunction and
its modification.
3. The defendant then moved an application for review of the
above order dated 15.05.2013, inter alia, again raising the issue of
territorial jurisdiction. It is in that context that the learned trial Judge
framed an issue to address the question whether the trial court has
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Though the order dated
14.02.2014 would not say so expressly, it appears from the tone and
tenor of the direction in the order that the trial Judge has presumed
that the question of territorial jurisdiction would be a pure question of
law.
4. The petition at hand has been pressed primarily on the
contention that the question of territorial jurisdiction in the present
case is a mixed question of fact and law.
5. After some hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that
he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition and make
appropriate submissions before the trial court to the effect that the
issue of territorial jurisdiction in the present case is a mixed question
of fact and law, though the respondent/defendant refutes this and
reserves his right to oppose such a prayer.
6. The prayer for withdrawal of the petition is granted with liberty
given to the petitioner to make an appropriate prayer in above light
before the trial court for appropriate decision to be taken thereof.
7. Needless to add, nothing in this order will be taken as
expression of opinion on the merits of the above noted contentions of
the parties.
8. The petition and the application filed therewith stand disposed
of with these observations.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 01, 2018
vk
