Back
Favours Kerala: Bombay HC Refuses Metro Brands' Leave to Join Claims
The has dismissed a filed by footwear giant seeking to combine its claim with a suit against Kerala-based . Justice Gauri Godse held that the favoured a trial in Kerala, where the alleged occurred and the defendant operates.
Case Background: A Tale of Two Brands and a Jurisdictional Tangle
Metro Brands, headquartered in Mumbai, sued Met Brands in the , alleging that the use of the mark ‘METBRANDS’ and ‘METBRANDS SHOES & BAGS’ infringed its registered trade mark ‘METRO’ and constituted . The plaintiff invoked , which allows a trademark owner to file an infringement suit where it resides or carries on business—here, its registered office in Mumbai.
However, the claim arose entirely in Kerala, where the defendant operates and where Metro Brands itself runs 18 stores. To avoid separate proceedings, Metro Brands sought leave under to join both causes of action in Mumbai.
The Arguments: Multiplicity vs. Hardship
Metro Brands’ counsel argued that joining the claims would prevent , relying on precedents such as and . They contended that since the registered office is in Mumbai, gives them the right to sue there, and Clause 14 permits joinder.
The defendant countered that it is a small Kerala-based entity with no connection to Mumbai. Forcing it to defend a claim in a distant would cause serious hardship. The defendant also pointed out that Metro Brands itself has a substantial presence in Kerala, making that more convenient.
Legal Analysis: The Court’s Deliberate Examination
Justice Godse analysed the ’s ruling in Sanjay Dalia , which clarified that Section 134(2) provides an additional but does not oust the ordinary jurisdictional rules under . The court noted that for claims, does not extend the special privilege—such claims remain governed by and, for the ’s original side, by .
Crucially, Metro Brands had not pleaded that its is only in Mumbai. The court observed that the plaintiff operates 895 stores across India, including 18 in Kerala, and the for arose there. Applying the principles from and , the court held that the registered office is not automatically the when the company has multiple offices.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The place where the arises is convenient for conducting a trial as relevant witnesses, documents, transactions and other evidence are likely to be available within that jurisdiction.”
“When both prayers fall within the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala, there is no question of multiplicity of proceedings, as the plaintiff has a choice of .”
“The optional chosen by the plaintiff in the present case is not found to be justifiable for exercising the under Clause 14 in favour of the plaintiff.”
Court’s Decision: Leave Denied, Plaintiff Given Liberty
Justice Godse dismissed the , holding that the clearly favoured a trial in Kerala. The court emphasised that leave under Clause 14 is discretionary and should not be granted when the chosen is not justified. Metro Brands was granted liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law—effectively inviting it to pursue its claim in a competent court in Kerala.
The ruling underscores that while trademark owners enjoy a wider choice of for infringement suits, they cannot automatically drag claims to a distant court when the and defendant are elsewhere. The decision serves as a reminder that under the must be exercised reasonably.
