Madras High Court
M/S V.Vidhya Industries vs / on 18 September, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
O.S.A.Nos 20 and 21 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.582, 588 and 592 of 2020
O.S.A.No.20 of 2020
M/s V.Vidhya Industries
a registered Partnership Firm
No.6/1, Nehru Street,
Avinashi Road, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004.
Rep.by its Partner Mr.V.Suresh ..Appellant
/versus/
1.K.K.Rajan,
Trading as Sharp Industries
801/1A, Sitra Road,
Sharp Nagar, Kalappatti,
Coimbatore 641 048.
2.Sharp Industries,
New No.234, Old No.143,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Parrys, Chennai 600 001. ..Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
Prayer: Original Side Appeal has been filed under Section 13(1) of
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI, Rule 1 & 9
of Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to allow
the appeal, set aside the Order dated 25.09.2019 made in O.A.No.109 of
2019 in C.S.No.103 of 2019 on the Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.
For Appellant :Ms.S.Subashiny
For Respondents :Mr.K.Harishankar for R1
------
O.S.A.No.21 of 2020
M/s V.Vidhya Industries
a registered Partnership Firm
No.6/1, Nehru Street,
Avinashi Road, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004.
Rep.by its Partner Mr.V.Suresh ..Appellant
/versus/
1.K.K.Rajan,
Trading as Sharp Industries
801/1A, Sitra Road,
Sharp Nagar, Kalappatti,
Coimbatore 641 048.
2.Sharp Industries,
New No.234, Old No.143,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Parrys, Chennai 600 001. ..Respondents
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
Prayer: Original Side Appeal has been filed under Section 13(1) of
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI, Rule 1 & 9
of Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to allow
the appeal, set aside the Order dated 25.09.2019 made in A.No.4083 of
2019 in C.S.No.103 of 2019 on the Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.
For Appellant :Ms.S.Subashiny
For Respondents :Mr.K.Harishankar for R1
----------
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.)
The Plaint filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Code read with Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, No.4 of 2016, was
initially entertained by this Court, granting leave to sue, since the first
defendant is carrying on business at Coimbatore and the second
defendants, alleged to be distributor of the first defendant, is carrying on
business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Original Side of the
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
2. The leave to sue granted by this Court was subsequently
revoked on an application filed by the defendants. Since it was found that
the appellant and the first defendant, who are the real contesting parties,
are carrying on business at Coimbatore, which falls outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Original Side of the Madras High Court and sofar as
the second defendant is concerned, it was found that they are not carrying
on business at the said address.
3. The learned Single Judge, after going through the records
and the pleadings, found that the plaint squarely falls within the ambit of
forum shopping. Though Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999,
entitles the plaintiff to sue at the place, where he carries on business, in
this case, the plaintiff, who is admittedly carrying on business at
Coimbatore had chosen Chennai Court by impleading the second
defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who has
preferred this OSA, on being aggrieved by the revocation of leave
contended that the second defendant is the distributor of the first
defendant is established through justdial portal. Jurisdiction being a
mixed question of fact and law, having granted leave to sue, the same
ought not to have been revoked for the reason stated by the learned
Single Judge.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the respondent is the registered Proprietor of the trademark "SHARP
FORCE". Appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (in short “IPAB”) for cancelling registration was
dismissed and culminated in favour of the respondent. It was further
submitted that claiming as prior user of the Trademark a suit was filed
before the Commercial Division of this Court investing jurisdiction by
impleading the second defendant. When it was brought to the notice of
this Court that the first defendant has no presence within the jurisdiction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
of the Original Side of Madras High Court and that the second defendant
is not carrying on any business at the said address, the leave to sue was
rightly revoked.
6. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent, the
learned Single Judge, upholding the principle of forum convenience,
rightly held that since the plaintiff as well as the first defendant are
carrying on business at Coimbatore, there is no necessity to entertain the
suit at Chennai.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the respondents.
8. Cause of action for the suit arose in 2011 as a prior user of
the trade mark “SHARP FORCE” by the plaintiff and consequently, on
07.01.2019 when the plaintiff came to know about the first defendant
using the mark “SHARP FORCE”. The plaintiff claiming as the prior
user had laid the suit. However, the claim regarding exclusive use of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
registered trade mark “SHARP FORCE” by the plaintiff has been
decided by this Court recently and held in favour of the first defendant.
While the fact being so, this Court, apart from holding that the suit filed
before the Original Side of the Madras High Court lacks territorial
jurisdiction, also holds that the cause of action for the suit is no more
available to the plaintiff. Hence, these Original Side Appeals stand
dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(DR.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
08.09.2025
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
Speaking order/Non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
ari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2020
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
ari
O.S.A.Nos 20 and 21 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.582, 588 and 592 of 2020
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:23:13 pm )
